Forum: Author Hangout

The people who wrote the Winston ad knew before it ever aired once that it did not fit the English rules of grammar. They didn't care. They weren't trying to pass an English test. They were trying to cell cigarettes. The ad was very effective.

That was my point. They thought it sounded better so they did it grammatically incorrect.

My thoughts (for writers of fiction) are:
(a) no, or not necessarily
(b) yes

My answer is (c) maybe

It depends. I would suggest you start with proper grammar — but then listen to what you wrote. Just like contractions are now acceptable (and maybe preferred) in fiction narrative because it sounds better (less stuffy; flows better; reads easier), the same is true for other cases.

As I said before, I will not write "than she." It just sounds wrong to me even though I know it's right. As to like/as, most times I will do it right by using "as," but sometimes it just sounds better (to me) to do it wrong with "like" so I use "like."

Who says a word can only be used as an adjective? How many times have you seen "pistoned" used as a verb in a sex story? Many nouns have a verb version, but "piston" isn't one of them. Does that mean the author cannot turn it into a verb? He can.

So if you're writing a school paper or a business letter, listen to the dictionary. If you're an author of fiction, do what sounds right for your story. Saying that, you better have a good reason to break the grammar rule.

So if you're writing a school paper or a business letter, listen to the dictionary. If you're an author of fiction, do what sounds right for your story. Saying that, you better have a good reason to break the grammar rule.

And 'it sounds better to me?' is a good (enough) reason? I'm sure there are scores of people who'll take an instant exception to that.

And 'it sounds better to me?' is a good (enough) reason? I'm sure there are scores of people who'll take an instant exception to that.

Yes, it's a good enough reason. It's my name on the story.

If that states (a) the word can only be used as an adjective, or (b) what preposition should be used with a verb; do you accept those limitations?

The key aspect is the meaning, and what people expect it to mean. Some words retain their meaning while having their grammatical function vary with certain types of usage. I don't let that become a straight-jacket. However, if the usage I'm applying is a slang or colloquial one I make sure to show that and the usage meaning in the context of the meaning, it's like, well, ya know, how it goes. That's the greatest advantage and strength of vernacular English, it's not as rigid as Formal English.

Formal English is a stiff and rigid as the maitre d'hotel at the Royal Yacht Club, while Vernacular English is like the hobo spooning stew from a pot into cans for people around the fire then hands them out while saying, "Get this into ya." Both do the same function, but one is rigid and one is free flowing.

A lady famous for enjoying life could be honourably called gay but try calling her that now that the Americans have got hold of the word!

Hey, don't blame us Americans for that usage. It's dated back to (I believe) the 15th Century, though it's only recently (within the last century) become accepted as common usage (i.e. quoted in dictionaries).

The other key to using dictionaries is that they are the LAST ones to accept a word, long after (in some cases decades after) it's been accepted by everyone else! Since they've fallen so far behind in acknowledging changes, they're now adding words so frequently most go completely out of use within a couple years of their acceptance by the various dictionaries--which doesn't help their standing with the public at all!

The other key to using dictionaries is that they are the LAST ones to accept a word, long after (in some cases decades after) it's been accepted by everyone else!

If you haven't seen the movie "Akeelah and the Bee" you should. The reason for its reference here, though, is because a girl from the ghetto is coached by someone who was the head of the English department at one of the big Calif universities. When she used ghetto talk he said he'd stop coaching her (for a spelling bee) if she doesn't use words in the dictionary.

Some time later, she used "dis" so he called her on it and was about to throw her out. Then she showed him that it was in the dictionary.

Some time later, she used "dis" so he called her on it and was about to throw her out. Then she showed him that it was in the dictionary.

And she probably spent quite a bit of time scouring the dictionary to find the single word she could catch him with!

And she probably spent quite a bit of time scouring the dictionary to find the single word she could catch him with!

She didn't try to catch him. She used the word because it was a real word, but he was a stuffy English professor who didn't know it was now in the dictionary (after being used as slang in the ghetto).

She didn't try to catch him. She used the word because it was a real word, but he was a stuffy English professor who didn't know it was now in the dictionary (after being used as slang in the ghetto).

I did that kind of thing myself in high school. I'd get a real anal twat of a teacher, and I'd pull little stunts like that. She might just have gotten lucky, but it's more likely she knew what she was doing and was trying to teach him a lesson (which he rightly deserved).

My comment was that a perfectly acceptable and very old word with an accepted meaning was unnecessarily purloined and used in a very different and difficult manner

It's still perfectly acceptable to claim that you're "gay with joy", or even as one recent gay semi-celebrity insisted, "I'm gay for hats!" It's not as common as it was years ago--mostly because people are worried about being misunderstood--a significant issue in using any word--and people have historically sniggered over your usage, it's not a new phenomenon.

If a word choice causes more confusion than it resolves, it generally considered a poor word choice. "Happy" or "joyful" describe "gay" perfectly adaquately, so why use an over-the-hill term which hasn't been used widely since the 50s comedy routines?

so why use an over-the-hill term which hasn't been used widely since the 50s comedy routines?

shock value.

For example: drug as the past tense of drag.

(Just playing a little devil's advocate here.)

Don't forget "dove" as the past tense of "dive."

@Ernest

For example: drug as the past tense of drag.

@Switch

Don't forget "dove" as the past tense of "dive."I drug the drugged dove who dove into the lake back onto dry land?

I drug the drugged dove who dove into the lake back onto dry land?

The words have vastly different meanings.

I agree with you, but since the mid 1970s when a US live TV news reported used decimate when he should have used devastate to describe the destruction of an alpine village in an avalanche, the US media have been warping the media to cover their blunders. Now they change meanings of words based on votes.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate

Simple Definition of decimate

: to destroy a large number of (plants, animals, people, etc.)

: to severely damage or destroy a large part of (something)

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=decimate

dec·i·mate (dĕsə-māt′)
Share: Tweet
tr.v. dec·i·mat·ed, dec·i·mat·ing, dec·i·mates
1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group of people or organisms).
2. Usage Problem
a. To inflict great destruction or damage on: The storm decimated the region.
b. To reduce markedly in amount: a profligate heir who decimated his trust fund.
3. To select by lot and kill one in every ten of (a group of soldiers).
[Latin decimāre, decimāt-, to punish every tenth person, from decimus, tenth, from decem, ten; see dek in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]
dec′i·mation n.
Usage Note: Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a population. In our 2005 survey, 81 percent of the Usage Panel accepts this extension in the sentence The Jewish population of Germany was decimated by the war, even though it is common knowledge that the number of Jews killed was much greater than a tenth of the original population. This is an increase from the 66 percent who accepted this sentence in our 1988 survey. However, the Panel is less accepting of usages that extend the meaning to include large-scale destruction other than killing, as in The supply of fresh produce was decimated by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Some 36 percent accepted this sentence in 2005, up from 26 percent in 1988, but still a decided minority.

what about POV? What if the narrator is a character themselves, then the grammar and the narration are adjusted to fit their speech pattern, rather than using a 'stilted' formal grammar guidelines.

True in a 1st-person story because the narrative is equivalent to dialogue. But not in a 3rd-person story.

True in a 1st-person story because the narrative is equivalent to dialogue. But not in a 3rd-person story.

It depends on the story. It's most often done in 1st person, but I don't believe it's a requirement. I started my "Catalyst" in 1st person for that precise reason, but found it an unyieldly compromise, so abandoned it mid-way through the story (book 4), only to end the story by revealing the narrator (who'd changed from 1st person to 3rd to better tell her story) was actually an unacknowledged part of the story (a future child of one of the main characters).

Granted, I fumbled the ball on that one, only learning belatedly that I couldn't handle writing in 1st person, despite it being the preferred method for writing that type of story, but I'm not sure you can categorically state that no character driven story can ever be written in a 3rd person perspective.

but I'm not sure you can categorically state that no character driven story can ever be written in a 3rd person perspective.

I agree with you on this, CW. I must be one of the biggest advocates of first person stories here, but I've written character driven stories in the 3rd person, and am in the middle of writing some others.

Regardless of the POV, narration can be seen as the narrator speaking to the reader. This is particularly true for 1st person POV. It is still true even if what is being narrated is action rather than character dialog.

A common usage of character speech patterns in 3rd person is when the narrator is only named in the final scenes of a book. Prior to that, the only clues to who they are is their phrasing of terms and their knowledge (or perspective) of the unfolding events.

Sorry, SB but that simple riposte seen by itself is not right.
In the first person the text could be an action - "I walked down to the road" OR speech such as I said "whatever". No way is that first example a bit of dialogue

I don't understand your comment.

With 1st-person, the narration is like dialogue. After all, the 1st-person narrator is telling you a story so it can be written as informally as the character speaks in dialogue. Think "Huck Finn."

So the action of "I walked down to the road" for a certain 1st-person narrator could be "I walked da road."

With 1st-person, the narration is like dialogue. After all, the 1st-person narrator is telling you a story so it can be written as informally as the character speaks in dialogue. Think "Huck Finn."

So the action of "I walked down to the road" for a certain 1st-person narrator could be "I walked da road."

Unless the 1st person narrator tells you about someone else (ex: "John walked into the bar with a Priest, a Rabbi and an Iman.")

My favorite walks into a bar joke:

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

In that case, let me modify my joke:

John walked into the bar with a Priest, a Rabbi and an Iman. "Ouch!" "Yeow!" "Holy Fuck!"

Is that better?