Forum: Author Hangout

Otherwise you end up starting sentences with too many "he" or "I" words.

That's a GOOD reason for not saying, 'Never'.
I'm not sure why you mentioned the running/ran distinction.
Are you saying: 'When you decide to replace an -ing verb, you cannot just use the verb form without -ing. You must consider what form is really needed'?

Scanning my bus pass as I get on, I flop into the nearest seat

Got it. The original. 'Scanning my bus pass as I get on, I flop into the nearest seat' means the scanning is still happening when they flop down.

But my version, 'I scan my bus pass getting on and flop into the nearest seat' means only the scan and get on were concurrent, and the flop comes later.

I wonder if you need a "then" as in "and then flop into"

Agreed. I should have been more cautious while writing about showing caution.

You can scan your pass while getting onto the bus, but you have to already be on the bus when you sit down.

I'm glad I asked.
If you decide to use an -ing verb, you need to be cautious how long that action will be continuing.

You can scan your pass while getting onto the bus, but you have to already be on the bus when you sit down.

I disagree. Finding a seat (if one is available) is what completes the process of getting on the bus.

how about just a small change:
Scanning my bus pass as I got on, I flopped into the nearest seat.

Reasonable for this sentence on its own, but not in between two sentences in the present tense.

Scanning my bus pass as I got on, I flopped into the nearest seat.

Then just change 2 words:
Scanning my bus pass as I get on, I flop into the nearest seat.

Scanning my bus pass as I get on, I flop into the nearest seat.

I'm going with Switch Blayde on this one (see his post 7/11/2016, 10:34:05 PM).

Without a 'then' before the 'I', that means the scanning is continuing during the flop.

Can anyone suggest a reason I should not recommend my author uses the shortest (13 words) unambiguous version: 'I scan my bus pass getting on then flop into the nearest seat'?

One valid reason already mentioned is they may want to break a string of sentences beginning with 'I'.

After scanning my bus pass while I get on, I flop into the nearest seat.

I like that more than the writer's original version.
I'll mention your suggestion in my edit notes, but then recommend they use my suggestion: I scan my bus pass getting on, then flop into the nearest seat.
That's two words shorter!

I scan my bus pass getting on, then flop into the nearest seat.

I don't believe that's correct. I don't think you can use "then" as a conjunction ........ It has to be "and then."

I agree; we have had this out before. There are at least two totally different time periods involved - firstly getting on and scanning the bus pass and only after that is done secondly flopping into the nearest seat. Therefore a conjunction is essential and "and" is appropriate.

An alternative might be "After getting on and [then] scanning my bus pass I flop into the nearest seat". Again the time periods are separated.

(Before someone argues, it is normal to step up into the bus before you encounter the scanner so I have actually created three time periods).

Therefore a conjunction is essential and "and" is appropriate.

That makes sense to me (I think). 'Then' will start the new action in a different time period, but you may still need to end the first action. You can achieve that by ending the current clause, so the conjunction is needed for the second action to be a new clause.
Have I got? Finally?

It has to be "and then."

Another little research project to add to my list. Thanks for clarifying the relevant point in your previous posts. This grammar stuff can be, like, really hard!

Screaming it's head off the kid ran down the mall corridor, hotly persued by a young girl

It's?

1. It's is always a contraction of it is or it was. The possessive of it is its, no '.

2. It is never used for people, therefore the kid must be a young goat. Why the fuck is the young girl chasing a young goat in a mall? Why is the goat in the mall in the first place? How did it get in the mall?

It is never used for people, therefore the kid must be a young goat. Why the fuck is the young girl chasing a young goat in a mall? Why is the goat in the mall in the first place? How did it get in the mall?

Love it!
You are really going to get crucified by the sexism mob and half the churches when they find out that you refer to her head when it was a boy. If you don't know the sex don't guess because there is a 50% chance you are wrong.
Yes, the French would always refer to the child as a boy but that is the French thing!

That hasn't been universally accepted yet. Grammar Girl has a good blog on it.

It may not be universally accepted, but it at least has some history to it with uses of a singular they going back at least to the 15th century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Older_usage

That hasn't been universally accepted yet. Grammar Girl has a good blog on it.

Sorry but I can't see this subject in her "Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing"

It may not be universally accepted, but it at least has some history to it with uses of a singular they going back at least to the 15th century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Older_usage

Whilst I appreciate the support (if that it be) the examples (note the past tense in the introduction):

Alongside they, however, it was also acceptable to use the pronoun he as a (purportedly) gender-neutral pronoun,[22] as in the following:

"Suppose the life and fortune of every one of us would depend on his winning or losing a game of chess."— Thomas Huxley, A Liberal Education (1868);[23] quoted by Baskervill.[24]

"If any one did not know it, it was his own fault."— George Washington Cable, Old Creole Days (1879);[25] quoted by Baskervill.[24]

"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."— Article 15, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).[26]

in each case start by making them clearly all-inclusive.

References to he/she were made in the 1800's:

nineteenth-century grammarians insisted on a singular pronoun on the grounds of number agreement, while rejecting "he or she" as clumsy.[33]

(from the above referenced Wiki page)

This followed the mid 1700's item

A recommendation to use the generic he, rather than they, in formal English can be found as early as the mid-18th century, in Ann Fisher's A New Grammar,

so there is some agreement even if it was from a woman who IN THOSE DAYS would not have been regarded as the fount of all knowledge. As the first published English language grammarian she did not cite others nor is she apparently widely cited.

I ignore the next paragraph referring to Ostade because she, a Netherlands lady, is merely reciting from 18th century female grammarans, presumably Ann Fisher

In conclusion, whilst there are arguments for using the masculine when referring to a person whose gender is not disclosed is the writer not thereby offending ladies in the age of claimed equality? Worse, the idea of "he or she" (or a modern equivalent he/she) has itself been condemned.

Edited to make the quotes clearer

Whilst I appreciate the support (if that it be) the examples (note the past tense in the introduction):

I made no claim that the singular they for indeterminate gender was ever universally accepted, only that it had considerable history to it that goes well beyond the modern gender wars.

You are really going to get crucified by the sexism mob and half the churches when they find out that you refer to her head when it was a boy.

The same people will crucify you twice as fast for using "it" to refer to a human being. Use the awkward he/she or the plural they as singular.

They/them is generally acceptable for singular unknown and that goes back to before the whole sexism thing, but I find it every bit as awkward as he/she.

The same people will crucify you twice as fast for using "it" to refer to a human being. Use the awkward he/she or the plural they as singular.

I first went to Hell in February or early March 1964 and escaped. It was bl**dy cold.

As for he/she I do use that and the plural equivalent if I am referring to actual people and not imaginary ones.

I first went to Hell in February or early March 1964 and escaped.

You've been to Michigan?

http://www.gotohellmi.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html

I first went to Hell in February or early March 1964 and escaped.

It appears I am not the only good thing to come out of Hell

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F35%2F49%2Ff9%2F3549f9cf45c0c6e7cc2eed3d27410e1f.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fkattenfelix%2Ffamous-norwegian-people%2F&docid=t7UwAuDmeGkeOM&tbnid=s_nYC_vYecvo4M%3A&w=236&h=318&client=firefox-b&bih=740&biw=1600&ved=0ahUKEwijxNzQgvHNAhXBCMAKHVRwDxsQMwhvKEMwQw&iact=mrc&uact=8

You've been to Michigan?

http://www.gotohellmi.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html

No. My son went there and was far from impressed

Apparently on one day early in January 2014 Michigan Hell was actually colder than where I was though references to -20°C there have to be an understatement

The same people will crucify you twice as fast for using "it" to refer to a human being.

Hate to say it, but with all the mess about 'gender identity', 'IT' may be the way to go instead of trying to list out all of the various 'choices'.

Hate to say it, but with all the mess about 'gender identity', 'IT' may be the way to go instead of trying to list out all of the various 'choices'.

That may be true, personally, I am inclined to go that way myself, but I'm not stupid enough to think it will ever be generally, much less universally accepted without a fight, a very ugly fight.

Screwing the bus

How was he screwing the bus? Was he sticking his dick in the tail pipe? Considering the temperature of most vehicle exhaust, I would think that would be a bit dangerous. :)

I trust my ear on those.

I don't have enough experience to trust my ear yet. As CW noted, obvious mistakes aren't always obvious.

I've been using prowritingaid, PWA, (instead of autocrit) because it analyses 3,000 words (instead of 400) for free.

When I'm ready to subscribe, it will be autocrit. It seems to have extra features helpful for creative writing.

I use these reports by PWA which (sometimes) highlight changes worth making: passive & hidden verbs, repeated sentence starts, readability (e.g. superfluous that's), redundancies, grammar & spelling, sentence length & variety, diction (easier words),and consistency.

Within those reports, I routinely ignore split infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions. In the future, I'll check -ing verb reports to ensure the duration of that action is actually what the writer thinks.

The reports I consider a waste of time for creative writing are: overused words, -ly adverbs, cliches, sticky sentences, and vague & abstract words.

CW says he uses autocrit's repeated words check. I think PWA works differently, and only checks for overuse of words on a short list. I'm hoping autocrit counts the number of times all words are used, and then selects which to flag as potentially overused.

Also, my new author uses naturalreaders.com (note more than one reader) and finds it helpful.

It's good for hearing errors and inconsistencies introduced when editing, which happens more frequently for me than when writing first drafts.

I've doubts it's natural enough to hear when commas, etc. should be added or deleted. For those, I rely on reading aloud, because I then hear things I cannot see when reading.

I have five things I rely to find and correct my mistakes and grammar issues.
1. TenDerLoin
2. Dan
3. The Rev

Thanks, but ...
1. TenDerLoin WTF?
2. Dan WTF?
3. The Rev WTF?

Thanks, but ...
1. TenDerLoin

An often used editor with great skills. I have read many stories he has edited.

The others I haven't noticed that much however.

something often easy to overlook since you're already expecting to see the words.

AN IMPORTANT point I think. Writers all have their personal overuse tendencies, and the mere fact they wrote something may make their objective assessment of it impossible (on occasions).

I just checked the output from a prowritingaid analysis after a detailed edit. There were very few things I had not already found.

I am coming to the view that these aids are a productive use of time in only a few situations.

I think one is by the author just after writing a first draft. Flags for grammar, -ly words, repeated sentence starts, long or sticky sentences may help authors find needed changes easily and early on.

Same probably applies after an author has many many changes after an editor returns a long list of comments. Authors often introduce mistakes elsewhere in sentences when changing their word choices.

For editors (or at least for how I work) it's better to look at them after a detailed manual review.

And surely, it would not hurt for a proof reader to run an analysis after they think something is ready for posting.

In all cases, some of the checks made by software are valuable, but some are only useful for technical writers, and for those creative writers should trust the human instead.

I noticed recently that a computer has finally beaten a master at the game Go. They managed that for the comparatively simplistic game of Chess a long time ago, so it's really quite an achievement. I will not hold my breath waiting for them to beat us in finding issues in good creative writing.

Results, I can read and learn so many interesting facts. Of course that requires me to at least learn a little about what ever is being debated.

As for computers beating us at creative writing

I wasn't discussing computers beating humans at creative writing, I was only mentioned 'finding issues', i.e. editing (things these programs claim they are assisting us with now). I think humans will be much better at analysing what other humans have written for a long time to come.

I think humans will be much better at analysing what other humans have written for a long time to come.

That depends on what you mean by better and what you are analyzing the writing for.

There is for example software out there to determine the author of a given work by comparing it to other works with known authors.

It's not more accurate than a human at this, though from what I have read on it, it's at least close to being as accurate. However it is definitely much faster than a human.

There is for example software out there to determine the author of a given work by comparing it to other works with known authors.

It's not more accurate than a human at this, though from what I have read on it, it's at least close to being as accurate. However it is definitely much faster than a human.

That's a completely unrelated issue to what I was discussing, and it bores me to tears.

YES, it is correct and a valid point for others.

My 'issue' is why it was directed at me.

I would have had no issue if the poster had opened with a phrase like, 'And now for something completely different.'

I interpret 'that depends on what you mean' to indicate the writer wants to correct me, or explain something I have missed.

I am struggling hard to learn things that are important. I don't want my time wasted by issues that may be important to others, but not to me.

I appreciate anyone commenting directly to points I am trying to discuss. And all jokes are always appreciated.

If anyone sees something I write that prompts an unrelated point they want to make, go ahead, but make a control+C of my quote, and post it into a Reply to Topic.

PLEASE, I am too busy doing important things to be bothered with your trivia. Many poster are wasting my time by making a Reply to my posts, when they could easily paste it into Reply to Topic.

To CW, your comment was helpful in this sense, writing a reply helped me figure just what it is that pisses me off so much, and so often, when all I want is to continue my learning process.

My 'issue' is why it was directed at me.

Because you said:

I think humans will be much better at analysing what other humans have written for a long time to come.

Which is simply untrue as a global statement.

I provided an example of a type of analysis of writing where it isn't true.

Shakespeare asked in one of his plays, "to be or not to be, that is the question."

Switch Blayde tstamp = new Date(1468351387000);document.write(tstamp.toLocaleString());‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2016‎ ‎12‎:‎23‎:‎07‎ ‎PM2016-07-12 3:07:07pm
@Crumbly Writer

Note: Based on an earlier comment of yours, Switch, I've been paying more attention to my "be"

I routinely ignore this warning ... Start every sentence with a bland pronoun ... sounds boring!

That's exactly the point Switch Blayde made in first reply to this thread. Thanks to both.
Also, thanks to Switch Blayde for noting once an -ing verb starts a sentence, that action continues through all other actions in the sentence, unless a then or similar is used to end it. Caution is needed, because that can create problems that are easy to overlook.

*concession to Britspekers.

To me it is the same as different accents. I love them for the variety, which is the spice of learning new ways of looking at things around me.

having not read any of the rest of the thread ... if anyone up there says it's not to be done, they're talking through their hat

The consensus of the thread is -ing forms are certainly allowed, and can be very useful to break a series of sentences beginning with the same pronoun.

The thread then moved on to the care needed to ensure your sentence does not imply the -ing action is continuing when another action starts.

A lot of care may be needed, as you will see if you follow back my response just above to where SB finally convinced me 'and then' was needed in a sentence I thought was correct.