Home « Forum « Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Dove

Switch Blayde

Ernest, I guess this is for you. I just read the heading of an article in the "Washington Post" which is:

She dove in the water to save her son. It was her body they pulled out.


"Dove" is valid as the past tense of "to dive."

ustourist

@Switch Blayde

That leaves the reader believing she was in the water already, otherwise it would be dove 'into', but personally I would always use dove rather than an alternative - which I assume would be dived?
Dived just sounds incorrect to me.

Zom

Dove is a new creation which has only been around for a couple of hundred years. Dived is the non-US standard.

Replies:   sejintenej
Switch Blayde

@ustourist

otherwise it would be dove 'into',


I caught that also. :)

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

"Dove" is valid as the past tense of "to dive."


Not to most of the world, although it is used extensively in some regional areas of the USA.

It also causes most readers to wonder what the hell the writer was trying to say, due to the non-general usage. Which brings us back to the Apple owned and run dance club IHOP. By itself it isn't clear what it is or means, and causes reader disruption.

Replies:   Bondi Beach
sejintenej

@Zom

Dove is a new creation which has only been around for a couple of hundred years. Dived is the non-US standard.

Yet more evidence to support the governor and other high-ups of Illinois who voted to call the language of the west side of the Atlantic "American". Then some morons (we might call them berks over here) changed the name back.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@ustourist


Dived just sounds incorrect to me.


Dove just sounds incorrect to those from outside North America.

Replies:   ustourist
ustourist

@Ross at Play

I was taught dove at school - in the UK state system - back in the fifties.

awnlee jawking

@ustourist

I was taught dove at school - in the UK state system


As was I.

AJ

sejintenej

@ustourist

I was taught dove at school - in the UK state system - back in the fifties.

It is certainly logical but I simply don't remember the concept of diving coming up in school a bit before you. Later on ISTR the word 'dived' being used but since I was trying to learn proper English in the fifties I simply took it as being correct.

Crumbly Writer

@ustourist

That leaves the reader believing she was in the water already, otherwise it would be dove 'into', but personally I would always use dove rather than an alternative - which I assume would be dived?

Except, isn't "into" an unnecessary redundancy? "Dove in the water" is a complete sentence, adding "into" really adds nothing to the sentence at all. She's either in or out, there's no quantitative steps for "in the water".

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

Dove in the water" is a complete sentence


Depends on the actual situation. If I'm standing on something beside the water and decide to get wet, then I dive into the water. If I'm already in the water and decide to go from paddling with my head above the water to going under water, such as in a duck dive, then I'll dive in the water. The first is into, as it's to enter the water from inside it, the second is in the water because that's where you already are.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

If I'm already in the water and decide to go from paddling with my head above the water to going under water, such as in a duck dive, then I'll dive in the water.


Maybe it's an American vs British thing, but I wouldn't say dive in the water for that situation. It would be "I'll dive underwater."

Replies:   sejintenej
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

Except, isn't "into" an unnecessary redundancy?


Nope. Ernest explained it correctly.

I believe we have begun using "in" all the time even when "into" or "inside" is the correct word. When I'm editing my writing I'm constantly fixing that problem.

It's like using "can" instead of "may."

"Can I look up your skirt?"

"Sure."

When I tried, she slapped me.

"You said I can look up your skirt," I said.

"You can, meaning you have the ability, but I never gave you permission. If you would have asked, 'May I look up your skirt?' I'd have said no."

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

Nope. Ernest explained it correctly.


Not quite, from my understanding.

As I understand it the "to" is always required if changing location, and never used when describing the static location of something.

However, describing someone diving when already in the water, then neither applies it's not static nor does it involve a transition of location.

If it's already clear from context that the person is already in the water, then saying "in the water" in relation to the person diving is redundant in it's entirety. It's not like you might have meant he was diving from an airplane.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

From Grammar Girl:

When you use in, you're indicating position.

Her iPod was in her pocket.

When you use into in a sentence, you're indicating movement; an action is happening.

She stuffed her iPod into her backpack.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

From Grammar Girl:


I believe that that is what I very very close to what I said.

Bondi Beach

@Ernest Bywater

Which brings us back to the Apple owned and run dance club IHOP


I must live a sheltered life. The only IHOP I know is a U.S.-based chain of inexpensive restaurants with excellent breakfasts. Planning a trip? They'll give you a map with IHOP locations along your route.

What's the connection with Apple?

bb

Dominions Son

@Bondi Beach


What's the connection with Apple?


Except for their computers (Macs) all apple products and services these days are named iSomething. Generation Y thinks any I* must be some kind of Apple product or services.

In US parlance, a "hop" is an informal dance event for teens.

There fore, and IHOP must be an Apple dance venue.

Replies:   Bondi Beach  Capt Zapp
Bondi Beach
Updated:

@Dominions Son


There fore, and IHOP must be an Apple dance venue.


Heh. That was my first thought. Then I figured that was too weird. But of course, since we are all sticklers for language and grammar ("dove" vs "dove into" vs "dived," anyone?), it should have been iHOP.

I hated [sock] hops. Daylight, school property, no making out. Where's the fun in that?

bb

Dominions Son

@Bondi Beach

I hated hops. Daylight, school property, no making out. Where's the fun in that?


It wasn't just school events. From what I have read, a lot of diners and other causal restaurants that didn't have alcohol licenses ran their own hops to drum up business.

Dominions Son

@Bondi Beach

it should have been iHOP


Actually, for an Apple dance venue, it should be iHop.

Capt Zapp

@Dominions Son

In US parlance, a "hop" is an informal dance event for teens.


As a former DJ, I haven't heard the term 'hop' used for any kind of dance unless it was referring to a retro 'Sock Hop' in many years. Is it making a comeback?

Replies:   Bondi Beach
Bondi Beach
Updated:

@Capt Zapp


Is it making a comeback?


Don't know, but many members of this group are speaking from personal experience [ETA: with the original].

bb

Bondi Beach

@Dominions Son

Actually, for an Apple dance venue, it should be iHop.


Not if pancakes were included.

bb

Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

Actually, for an Apple dance venue, it should be iHop.


Either way, Chicago Manual of Style got it covered. They say you do not have to capitalize the first word in a sentence if that word starts with a lower case, such as, "iPad."

Ernest Bywater

@Bondi Beach

The only IHOP I know is a U.S.-based chain of inexpensive restaurants with excellent breakfasts.


BB, I was using the IHOP acronym to point out using a term outside it's generally expected or usual usage form will confuse people. The same applies when using a term that doesn't have a general expected usage form. The International House of Pancakes has stores in the USA, Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE only. Thus the great majority of the world's population have never seen or heard of the franchise, so using the acronym alone does not tell anything about what it is to the majority of people.

In using the term in what seems a logical manner different to what you expect it disrupts your reading, which is something all writers should avoid doing to the readers.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


"Can I look up your skirt?"

"Sure."

When I tried, she slapped me.


Be VERY CAREFUL if you ever go to Singapore or Malaysia.

Asians are very reluctant to answer with a definitive, "Yes". In South-East Asia, they usually say 'can' as an answer to mean "Yes", and as a question to mean "Will you?"

You are very likely to get slapped there just for asking, "Can I look up your skirt?"

Ernest Bywater

@Ross at Play

Be VERY CAREFUL if you ever go to Singapore or Malaysia.

Asians are very reluctant to answer with a definitive, "Yes". In South-East Asia, they usually say 'can' as an answer to mean "Yes", and as a question to mean "Will you?"

You are very likely to get slapped there just for asking, "Can I look up your skirt?"


Not sure I want to know how you know this. Sounds too much like direct knowledge, and way too much information.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Ross at Play


a question to mean "Will you?"


That's the error.

"Can you drive off a cliff?" is not the same as "Will you drive off a cliff?"

The first is asking if you have the ability. The second is asking you to do it.

Ross at Play

I was pointing out how strange the usage of 'can' is in Singapore and Malaysia.
In Australia, if I wanted a chip from somebody's plate, I would ask, "May I?" and expect the answer, "Yes."
In Singapore, I would ask, "Can?" and hope for the answer, "Can."

sejintenej

@Dominions Son

Ernest Bywater

If I'm already in the water and decide to go from paddling with my head above the water to going under water, such as in a duck dive, then I'll dive in the water.

Maybe it's an American vs British thing, but I wouldn't say dive in the water for that situation. It would be "I'll dive underwater."

IMHO EB is being grammatically correct. This is one of those cases where I (and probably a host of others) would go colloquial and say that I dive in the water off the shore / pool side

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@sejintenej

IMHO EB is being grammatically correct.


It might be grammatically correct, but 99.999% of the time, it's redundant.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

It might be grammatically correct, but 99.999% of the time, it's redundant.


I disagree, because the word in describes your current location, while the word into describes your action. People swim in the water, while they get into the water to swim. It's the correct way to use the words and how the majority of English speaking people would understand them.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

People swim in the water, while they get into the water to swim. It's the correct way to use the words and how the majority of English speaking people would understand them.


Not when you are talking about diving.

There are only three contexts for diving.

1. into water.
2. in the water.
3. out of an airplane.

Nearly all the time, the surrounding context will make explicitly stating 2 or 3 rendundent

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

explicitly stating 2 or 3 rendundent


true, context will often make the usage of the word redundant, but not always. This is especially so when you get a SEAL diving out of a helicopter into the water.

Replies:   ustourist
Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Dominions Son


1. into water.

2. in the water.

3. out of an airplane.

Nearly all the time, the surrounding context will make explicitly stating 2 or 3 rendundent


It only makes sense to you because we (as an English speaking country) have said it wrong for so long that you know what was meant.

It's the same for, "He laid down on the bed." Everyone knows that what's meant is "He lay down on the bed."

The same for, "Can I look up your skirt." Everyone (and evidently the people in Singapore) hear that as "May I look up your skirt."

But "in" and "into" mean different things. (see Grammar Girl's explanation)

ustourist

@Ernest Bywater

People also dive for cover, into bushes; they can dive into a shop, dumpster, etc. which invalidates his point about only three contexts.
Plus the whole original point of the 'in' or 'into' being raised was because it wasn't clear from the context.
I wouldn't waste your breath arguing, you are only lowering yourself to his level.

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

It only makes sense to you because we (as an English speaking country) have said it wrong for so long that you know what was meant.


For the tenth time, I am not saying "in the water" is wrong grammatically. I have not anywhere in this thread said that.

What I am / have been saying is that with dive in particular it will far more often then not be redundant in context.

Same thing goes with swim.

Paul: "Fred is swimming in the water."

Sam: "Thanks for clarifying, for a second there I thought he might be swimming in concrete."

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

It's the same for, "He laid down on the bed." Everyone knows that what's meant is "He lay down on the bed."


Switch, I suspect a big reason for the misuse of laid in that case is due to people pushing words into their past tense while writing because many are taught to write in the past tense. Most people see lay and lie as present tense words and thus to put it into the past tense they use laid - thus the error.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Paul: "Fred is swimming in the water."


he could be swimming in jello, sewerage, the cistern, the beer vat, the dam, the lake, the pool, the sea, or figuratively - with the sharks at the courthouse.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

he could be swimming in jello, sewerage, the cistern, the beer vat, the dam, the lake, the pool, the sea, or figuratively - with the sharks at the courthouse.


He could be, but all of those others in total would be only a few percentage points of all references to swimming. If you just say "Fred is swimming" that is still grammatically correct and the vast majority of of readers will correctly assume that Fred is in the water.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

assume that Fred is in the water.


probably, and in some cases he can be in the water and in the sewerage. Also, you often need to clarify which lot of water and where in the water.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Also, you often need to clarify which lot of water and where in the water.


true, but a simple "in the water" in regards to swimming will rarely add any useful information.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Dominions Son


true, but a simple "in the water" in regards to swimming will rarely add any useful information.


depends on the location and the context.

edit to add: while simply saying 'swimming' doesn't convey much unless there's already a lot of context to provide the implied water to swim in.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

while simply saying 'swimming' doesn't convey much unless there's already a lot of context to provide the implied water to swim in.


Simply saying 'swimming' necessarily implies that there is water to swim in. Saying 'swimming in the water' without being more specific says absolutely nothing more than just 'swimming'

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Dominions Son


Simply saying 'swimming' necessarily implies that there is water to swim in.


except at those fancy resort with the mud wallows you can swim in for your skin's health.

edit to add: Regardless of the situation, I'd never say something as simple as "Fred went swimming." I'd have to qualify it with the information on where he went swimming, as a bare minimum, so it becomes something like, "Fred went swimming at the Ashfield Pool." or similar.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Simply saying 'swimming' necessarily implies that there is water to swim in.


where i grew up you could go swimming in the bay, swimming in one of the local swimming pools, or go swimming in the swamp, which was more mud than water.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

Most people see lay and lie as present tense words and thus to put it into the past tense they use laid - thus the error.


Both lay and lie are present tense. The problem is that "lay" is also the past tense of "lie."

Lay the book on the table (present tense).
He lay on the bed (past tense).

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

Lay the book on the table (present tense).
He lay on the bed (past tense).


Switch, we both know that, and so do many others, but most have to stop and think about it before they realise lay can be both present and past tense, so when they want to go past tens they go with laid. Which is the point I was making, they choose the wrong word due to not really thinking about it while adhering to a policy they do not have to adhere to, but don't realise they can step out of it.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


swimming in the bay, swimming in one of the local swimming pools, or go swimming in the swamp, which was more mud than water.


All of which contain water, even if they contain more than water.

"He went swimming in the bay" is not redundant.

"He went swimming in the water" is redundant.

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

"He went swimming in the bay" is not redundant.

"He went swimming in the water" is redundant.


While "He went swimming" is not enough information to be useful.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

He swam in a pond of acid until his bones floated to the bottom.


I have no idea where you think there's redundancy.

But back to the topic:

1. He jumped in the water.
2. He jumped into the water.

Two very different meanings.

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

But back to the topic:
1. He jumped in the water.
2. He jumped into the water.
Two very different meanings.

Agreed.
There are two simple tests an author can use to decide whether or not they to use 'into' or 'in'.
The first test is whether substituting 'in to' makes sense. If so, then 'into' is correct.
The second test is whether they, as an author, have enough pride in their work to prefer using simple, correct words when they exist.
For this example, 'He jumped in to the water' is correct if he was not in the water before jumping. 'He jumped in the water' is only correct if he was already in the water before jumping.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

While "He went swimming" is not enough information to be useful.


"He went swimming in the water" provides zero additional information over "he went swimming"

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

I have no idea where you think there's redundancy.

But back to the topic:

1. He jumped in the water.
2. He jumped into the water.


Agreed on jumped.

Swimming is different. You can't swim just anywhere. You have to have a sufficiently dense fluid to swim in. 99% of the time that fluid will be water.

There fore adding something as generic as "in the water" to "he went swimming" add zero additional information.

By the way:

He swam in a pond of acid until his bones floated to the bottom.


This sentence makes zero sense.

1. swimming is an action and he would be dead and therefore incapable of taking any action long before his body was reduced to just bones.

2. Things float to the top, they sink to the bottom.

Replies:   sejintenej
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

"He went swimming in the water" provides zero additional information over "he went swimming"


by saying 'the water' you know he's not at the sewerage plant or in the beer vat.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


by saying 'the water' you know he's not at the sewerage plant or in the beer vat.


I assume he's not suicidal and the beer company isn't going to let him contaminate their beer, so the odds of him swimming in either of those places is too low to be worth considering if not explicitly mentioned.

Your overly contrived attempts to create ambiguity about what someone might be swimming in are not going to occur to any normal reader.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
sejintenej
Updated:

@Dominions Son


There fore adding something as generic as "in the water" to "he went swimming" add zero additional information.


Agreed; it is implied and is generally understood that he went swimming in water UNLESS the speaker/writer clarifies otherwise. You would not use the verb 'swimming' if you are discussing mud at a spa or bog racing (a UK masochistic competition)

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@sejintenej

bog racing (a UK masochistic competition)


We call it something else in North America, but it's popular in the US and Canada as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_bogging

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

The first test is whether substituting 'in to' makes sense. If so, then 'into' is correct.


"in to" isn't always "into." Here are two examples from Grammar Girl.

Squiggly walked in to hear Aardvark talking about the surprise party.

(Because to is part of the verb hear [to hear, an infinitive], keep it separate from in.)

We broke in to the room.

(Broke in is a phrasal verb. The word in belongs with broke. The word to is a preposition to tell the reader where the action of the verb happened. Where did you break in to? The room.)

My wife had her retirement party yesterday. She introduced me to a lot of people at her company, one group being the editing staff for all their publications. They all said they used Grammar Girl.

Replies:   Ross at Play
richardshagrin
Updated:

@Dominions Son


There are only three contexts for diving.


There is always going into dives (bars). If you or more normally a group go into multiple dives, you are "diving". Makes more sense than "baring". If you are going into upscale establishments that aren't dives, you may be bar-hopping. You have extremely strong leg muscles if you can hop over a bar, I don't know what you would call it. Maybe Superman who can leap tall buildings in a single bound can go bar hopping?

Dominions Son
Updated:

@richardshagrin


If you or more normally a group go into multiple dives, you are "diving". Makes more sense than "baring". If you are going into upscale establishments that aren't dives, you may be bar-hopping.


I've never heard it called anything other than bar-hopping, regardless of the quality of the bars involved.

You have extremely strong leg muscles if you can hop over a bar, I don't know what you would call it. Maybe Superman who can leap tall buildings in a single bound can go bar hopping?


You remind me of my favorite man walks into a bar joke.

A man walks into a bar and says...."Ouch!"

Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

I assume he's not suicidal and the beer company isn't going to let him contaminate their beer, so the odds of him swimming in either of those places is too low to be worth considering if not explicitly mentioned.


He might be, or know, an eccentric millionaire(or billionaire) who has a swimming pool(or pond) filled with beer or some other exotic liquid. It might be a particularly fluid mud(and women in particular seem to enjoy mud-baths) or milk for all we know. So it is possible he could dive into a pond(or pool) of something other than water, and live to tell of it.

Plenty of other kinds of pools he could dive into with lethal results, some being more immediate than others. You probably could swim (briefly) in some pools of acid before it incapacitated you. If you have the right protective gear, you might be able to swim with impunity in it.

A pool of lava on the other hand, isn't likely to be swimmable without very special protective gear, and even then, you'd probably be literally cooked in short order.

Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

So it is possible he could dive into a pond(or pool) of something other than water, and live to tell of it.


It's possible, but the probability it too low to create any real ambiguity so saying swimming without specifying "in the water"

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


"in to" isn't always "into."


Agreed. My 'test' needs to be more specific: If you have "in" and are wondering whether is correct, (or is "into" needed) then test if "in to" makes sense. If it does "in" is incorrect. You can usually change it to "into", but sometimes it must be "in to".

I appreciate the distinction you have pointed out. It had not occurred to me before that it may be incorrect to join two connecting words together that exist as one word combined. But I can see why it is necessary to check what parts of speech they actually are before doing so.

The second example would not apply for my (revised) 'test'. I know I hear it sometimes, but "We broke in the room" would fail my smell test. I know 'in' is incorrect, I would not be wondering.


all (the editing staff) said they used Grammar Girl


Good to know. Thanks.

P.S. I hope the wife's retirement goes well for you. :-)

sejintenej

@richardshagrin

If you or more normally a group go into multiple dives, you are "diving". Makes more sense than "baring". If you are going into upscale establishments that aren't dives, you may be bar-hopping

Those must be local slang; we would say you are "pub-crawling" (which, given the state of many afterwards, is appropriate)

sejintenej

@Not_a_ID

You probably could swim (briefly) in some pools of acid before it incapacitated you.

An outdoor swimming pool gets plenty of carbonic acid after rain. As for the chemicals used I often wondered if the chlorine compound I used reacted to form hydrochloric acid. Whatever, it was so mild we simply referred to the pool being filled with water.

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

except at those fancy resort with the mud wallows you can swim in for your skin's health.

You generally don't "swim" in mud. Instead they either apply a mud "mask", often covering the whole body, or at the more exclusive resorts, you'll "sit" in a mud "bath". They typically frown on swimming in mud, because no one wants to rescue someone drowning in mud, and losing customers in the under toe is bad for business.

(Believe me, I've been in several of them over the years, both in the U.S. (Chicago and Manhattan) and Europe.

@Ernest

or go swimming in the swamp, which was more mud than water

Our swamps are filled with stagnant water, making them less attractive, though there's usually plenty of mud along the edges making getting in and out difficult. They're often infested with alligators, making swimming in it more dangerous than merely unpleasant!

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

All of which contain water, even if they contain more than water.

"He went swimming in the bay" is not redundant.

"He went swimming in the water" is redundant.

That's why I'll often get metaphysical:

He went swimming in his imaginary fjords.

or

He swam, staring into the starry abyss high overhead.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

"He went swimming in the water" provides zero additional information over "he went swimming"

Can we possibly compromise and agree "he went swimming" is a poor sentence construction as there's too little information. While adding a couple more boring words ("in the water") doesn't help, adding more context does.

He went swimming, enjoying the crisp, cool water against his skin.

or

He went swimming, fighting the fierce battering waves in his bathtub which continually threatened to pull him down the drain.


Both those examples are MUCH more fun to read than the boring and uninformative "He went swimming in water." :(

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


Can we possibly compromise and agree "he went swimming" is a poor sentence construction as there's too little information. While adding a couple more boring words ("in the water") doesn't help, adding more context does.


I definitely agree that adding more context is better. My only objection is that adding "in the water" to swimming doesn't actually add any context.

The larger context matters as well. If it's just base narrative your examples are certainly better.

On the other hand if the setting is a cottage on a lake and Fred asks Janet where Bob is then "He went swimming." as a response is fine. It shouldn't be necessary to be more specific in dialog unless the general setting offers more than one possible location to go swimming.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

I definitely agree that adding more context is better. My only objection is that adding "in the water" to swimming doesn't actually add any context.

Jesus J. Christopher! We get it. You prefer "in the water". However, everyone else here thinks it's a stupid idea and not only wouldn't use it, but actively dislike seeing redundancies like that while reading.

I was trying to move beyond your continued yammering about the same dead issue. We understand your objection, but the rest of us have moved on weeks ago. Take the rejection like a man and move on. Keep using "He swam in water" if you like, but don't expect anyone else to follow you in.

I was providing an alternative. Instead of combining two overly simplistic fragments which describe nothing at all (and are utterly boring), I suggested using an alternate approach of introducing a new, unrelated element to the sentence to spice it up and distract from the whole "in what?" argument.

Now, if you have nothing else to add, let's move on and focus on something else than your fondness of unnecessary redundancies.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Dominions Son
Not_a_ID

@Crumbly Writer

Like ATM machines?

Replies:   richardshagrin
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


You prefer "in the water".


No, I was consistently objecting to "in the water". Where you get the idea that I prefer it from I have no idea.

However, everyone else here thinks it's a stupid idea and not only wouldn't use it, but actively dislike seeing redundancies like that while reading.


WHAT THE FUCK? I'm the one who has been complaining that "swimming in the water" was redundant.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

WHAT THE FUCK? I'm the one who has been complaining that "swimming in the water" was redundant.

Sorry, I was trying to close down the petty squabbling, and when you objected to my compromise, I lost it, assuming you were objecting to my compromise rather than agreeing with it (since you never said those words). However, I didn't backtrack to see who specifically said what.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

I lost it, assuming you were objecting to my compromise rather than agreeing with it (since you never said those words)


My first sentence was:

I definitely agree that adding more context is better.


I only had a minor quibble about one very specific situation involving dialog rather than narration.

richardshagrin

@Not_a_ID

Like ATM machines?

They have ass to mouth machines?

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@richardshagrin

I'd be more surprised if somebody, didn't have one somewhere on this great big, and very disturbing world.

sejintenej

@Dominions Son

I definitely agree that adding more context is better. My only objection is that adding "in the water" to swimming doesn't actually add any context.

Surely it depends totally on the context. Swimming can be used when referring to the mire surrounding the Mafia or in some other chaotic situation. It has been used by an SOL writer to describe the subject's feelings swimming in the darkness and silence between death and new life.

I agree with the normal lack of need to refer to the water - a separate thread is dealing with the task of making text more concise

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@sejintenej

I agree with the normal lack of need to refer to the water - a separate thread is dealing with the task of making text more concise

That's simple enough. You remove anything which doesn't advance the story. Recognizing what's appreciated and what isn't is the tough part. Identifying what you never included is even tougher! Is swimming between darkness and a new life excess, or necessary exposition? Who the hell knows until it succeeds or fails?

Replies:   sejintenej
sejintenej

@Crumbly Writer

Is swimming between darkness and a new life excess, or necessary exposition? Who the hell knows until it succeeds or fails?

I think he/she has died 10 times so far (always violently) and wonders if he/she is dead for keeps or just "resting" in preparation for being dumped in another live body. In this case I don't think the repeated exposure is too excessive even though there is repetition.

PotomacBob

@Switch Blayde

I was taught that dove is a bird. The past tense of dive is dived

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@PotomacBob

I was taught that dove is a bird. The past tense of dive is dived


And the past tense of drive is drived. And the past tense of ride is rided.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Switch Blayde

Don't you just love English irregularities! The past tense of hive is hived, hove being the past tense of heave! :)

AJ

Back to Top