Forum: Author Hangout

n that instance, I'd suggest (something else I've never done), writing the entire story and THEN deleting the first several chapters, so you can write the opening scenes in a style which better reflects the entire story, rather than the awkward 'getting to know the characters' most opening chapters start as.

It's been nearly two years since I started my rewrite. I'm now comfortable in my 'voice' only to discover that the early chapters aren't in that voice. Editing will abound.

notice the "had studied." That tells the reader he did it at an earlier time than the current time in the story. It's required.

Something is definitely required, but there are options.
"Had studied" DOES tell the reader he did it at an earlier time AND he has finished the study.
"Has studied" DOES tell the reader he started at an earlier time AND is still doing it.

"He studied her for the past several weeks, and was now ready to act."

That sounds simply wrong to me, and I'd wager that's because it's grammatically incorrect.

Your ear is good.

Yeah, I knew 'had' was missing in that sentence. Since I badly lack a formal education in English, I rely on my ears to detect mistakes, and usually avoid grammatical discussions.

Your ear is good.

I think what is happening in this thread is some confusion is arising simply because it's so hard to describe what we actually do.
I support what CW says he does as a principle, but I'm sure his ear in good enough that in practice there are times he decides it sounds better to leave the extra word there.

@Crumbly Writer
"He studied her for the past several weeks, and was now ready to act."
@robberhands
That sounds simply wrong to me, and I'd wager that's because it's grammatically incorrect.

I think there's a point at which what CW is suggesting as an approach may still be technically allowable but it will sound unnatural.
In the context SB used this sentence I would want to explicitly state whether or not the studies were completed. There is some loss of information if the 'had' is eliminated. Here I'd rather err on the side of being explicit in my meaning, even at the cost of an extra word in the verb phrase.

Here I'd rather err on the side of being explicit in my meaning, even at the cost of an extra word in the verb phrase.

And here I thought someone like you could simply tell me if it's gramatically wrong, or not. I guess my policy of staying away from grammatical discussions served me better.

And here I thought someone like you could simply tell me if it's gramatically wrong, or not.

My assessment was is it's grammatical allowable, but I'm not certain of that.
You could gain the impression from my posts that I make choices based on whether something is grammatically correct. That is definitely NOT TRUE. At most, that only becomes my default choice if there is no good reason for doing something different.
I'm not a moron; I use my judgement; I credit you lot with the ability to use your judgement too.

Like a new mechanic, Ross like's to know how the bits operate and what goes where, so he's more of a stickler when discussing grammar rules than he is in implementing them. As we've all noted, there are guidelines, but authors break them all the time. Sometimes it doesn't work, but when it does, breaking rules can make the difference between an average story and a phenomenal one. The key is knowing the rules, and the reasons behind them, so that when you break them, you'll understand the potential costs and what you're facing if it doesn't work out.

THANK YOU.

There are self-limiting rules on Ross's verb completion calculations.

What??? There are no calculations ... mine or anybody else's.
'Completed' AKA "Perfect Tense". That's all I meant.

Presumably to have completed buying the car would require 'I had bought a car'.

You've taken one sentence I wrote out of context, and then constructed a ridiculous scenario completely at odds with what I've been discussing here.
Please do not waste my time by directing rubbish like this at me.

That is uncalled for. It was a valid question.

NO, IT WAS NOT!
It was FALSE for AJ to suggest what I have been saying in this thread suggests I might advocate, 'I had bought a car'. What I have been saying, as anyone who cares to read this thread will clearly see, is the exact OPPOSITE of that.
I have gone to some lengths to explain here how native speakers find ways to be lazy, and the natural thing to say when that was their meaning would be, 'I bought a car'.

the natural thing to say when that was their meaning would be, 'I bought a car'.

That's what I thought when I read the original posts. I often believe I've written 'had' too often and look for ways to remove them.

It was definitely an info dump. But back then I thought a story should start with defining the main character. Now I know it needs to start as close to the conflict as possible.

I've learned to start with the protagonist's 'normal world' and the lie that he believes in, then rather quickly introduce something which shakes up that world.

My current opening starts with showing a day in the life of my MC, as he considers his hometown and family relationships, showing how he's on the verge of but afraid to go out into the world on his own. Also, how his shyness and anxieties have him masturbating instead of actually talking to girls. Then along comes his younger cousin whom he hadn't seen in years. Immediately overwhelmed by her, he struggles with that attraction but continues in his same habitual manners - although he does better in hanging with her because he's not overtly trying to court her. Soon he has to confront his demons and then make the point of no return decision.

...where I discovered a wonderful trick of having the various 'good guys' all having competing motivation which caused a continual 'give and take' among the protagonists,...

That's not a trick, that's called life.

In short, since I've became aware of the words I overused I been conscious of them while writing first drafts and tend to limit their usage right up front, and that has the flow-on effect of reducing the editing time later; both for me and my editors.

I grateful to see you say that. That was precisely my experience while learning to write well making posts on these forums, and the exact thing I keep telling authors I begin working with. I regard as an investment the time I spent on learning things like grammar, punctuation, stating the same idea with less words, ensuring my words say what I mean precisely (not just close enough for readers to guess), and a range of issues that result in a smoothly read style.
I can now bang out in perhaps an hour a thousand-word email to an author explaining complex issues of writing style, then after a quick proofread it's virtually error-free technical writing with a clarity and prose style of which I can feel proud.
I am a nitpicking monster when I edit for others. But, my actual objective is that after six or twelve months of my drip-drip-drip harassment of them, they'll be getting many of the points I stress righ - the first time, and with little thought - so what they'll really be focusing on then is what ideas should be in their story and the best way to express them.

No, CW.
Did you not recognise the attempt at humour: intentionally making something so awful and tedious it becomes funny?
I know many Americans will hate it. So be it.

I doubt has much impact on your basic story plot

Sigh!
If you hate it that much, I might have got it just right for its intended audience.
The entire point of the joke is that it is so superfluous to anything and so excessive!

EDIT TO ADD:

Here's another example of what some British and Australians would find amusing:

First the mundane, then perhaps the most glorious example imaginable, but oh no, I'm not finished yet and you will be made to suffer for a long time, for another thirty words at least via convoluted pathways and needless detours until the pathetic little joke finally, at last, appears in the final couplet!

And yes, you'd be right that one would not advance the plot either.

I interpret that to mean writers should delete 'exceptionally fine writing' if it is inconsistent with the remainder of a work.

This was how I learned it. You may write a perfectly lovely bit of prose, but if you find it doesn't fit with the rest of the story - off with it's head!

I think sometimes an author writes something he falls in love with. He likes the words used, the rhythm, the metaphors, or whatever reason. But that sentence, paragraph, section adds nothing to the story and should be deleted. It's hard because he loves it so much (it's his darling), but it needs to be deleted (murdered) because it shouldn't be there.

I think that is a much better interpretation than I used above for what was meant when this phrase was originally used.
My objection to the way EB uses the term is not that the point he makes is not very important. My objection is he's purloining something which already has a different and valuable meaning. I do not want others here to miss out on hearing the valuable advice in its original intended meaning.

EB, I beg you, please stop using this expression to mean an author's personal list of words they overuse. Please call that 'overused words', or whatever. To do otherwise would be a disservice others here. The original meaning is valuable warning to authors to be cautious of retaining something in a story simply because they like how well it was written.

1. Limit what's in a story to what helps develop the characters and plots (including sub-plots and side plots);
and
2. They should be very careful about over using the same word or phrase too often.

1. Ditto that one;
and
2. Likewise from me.

We've already had this discussion and decided to call them either "filler" words. (We also used another term, but I can't recall what it was offhand.)

'Filler words' is fine with me, and I think the other you mean is 'filter words' - a sub-class where the action is interpreted by another instead of stated directly.
Those words are the same for everybody.

What EB is referring to the personal set of words each of us tend to overuse, although 'that' seems to be in everybody's set.
The one's I know of are 'so', 'just', and 'do/does/did'.
If EB does not know this, he should look at how often he uses the word 'as'.
For you, it's ever word ending in '-ing'.
IMHO, that is.

Doesn't that count as 'author intrusion'

My second example had nothing to do with author intrusion.
I thought you'd at least spot the similarities in:
Clause 1 of (A) - like a groundhog
Clause 1 of (B) - first the mundane
Clause 2 of (A) - a splendiferous phoenix arising from the ashes
Clause 2 of (B) - then perhaps the most glorious example imaginable
Clause 3 of (A) - 30+ words of crap to get to the joke in the last two words
Clause 3 of (B) - 30+ words of crap to get to the joke in the last two words

When I said:
what some British and Australians would find amusing

Look up Norman Gunston and Dame Edna Everage on Youtube - two of the most loved caricatures on Australian TV.
It will take you about two minutes each to decide they're irredeemably awful and stupid. That's WHY so many Aussies love them.
Brits enjoy that style of humour too - something so bad that it becomes funny.

I find I can avoid using most instances of "had" simply by using "did" or "was". The "had" is simply another level of distance from the reader, which makes the story feel more abstract, rather than personal and intimate.

I have no idea what you mean. Do you have any examples?

Without considering the highly irregular be-verb and have-verb ...
You simply cannot form any Past Perfect Tense (i.e. progressive as well or not) without using 'had'.
Likewise, you cannot form the Past Progressive Tense (i.e. not perfect as well) without using 'was' or 'were'.

I concede English speakers often find ways of not using perfect and progressive tenses when those meaning can still be understood.

Not without searching for various stories

I wouldn't ask you to make an effort on my account.

I suppose my point would be that verbs really are nowhere near as confusing as most people think.
Once you have decided what verb you want to use there are only four questions you can ask:
1. Is it present, past, or future?
2. Is the action complete or incomplete?
3. Is the action progressive (happening now) or a state of being?
4. Do I need the active or passive voice?

Trying to define how to construct your verb phrase is an act of futility. Been there ... I was totally futiled :(
However, for native speakers they'll just automatically know what is right if they try :)
In case you don't realise, 'was futiled' is the past, incomplete, state-of-being, passive tense of to-futile :?

The thing I have found is English speakers are often lazy in not using perfect and progressive tenses when the context allows the correct meaning to be inferred. The perfect tenses always have 'have/has/had' and progressive tenses always have something ending in '-ing'. The problem is you can't just drop them, you usually need to "massage" the remaining words in the verb phrase so it will make sense.

My guess is nobody has a clue what I'm going on about here. That's okay.

The real conclusion is CW is right that it's easy to fall into a tendency to overuse any of the '-ing', or 'have/has/had', or 'was/were' forms of verbs - BUT the solution is NOT to hunt them out and destroy them. The solution is to ask (well, first of all ask whether you have the correct tense to begin with, but then ...) could you use an incomplete or non-progressive tense without affecting readers ability to interpret it correctly?

Still confused? Tough! This is not easy because native speakers are so creative at being lazy. But what CW says can be done, but it will take practice.

I appreciate the value of your experience in those comments.
I would say past perfect tenses can "sound less natural" rather "distance readers" - is that the most trivial quibble ever made here? - but we both recommend the same axe as the appropriate response. :-)
What you suggest for perfect tenses in the past is what I have noticed for progressive tenses in the present - the routine lazinesses native speakers know they can get away with are:
- if it's in the past there's probably no need to be specific that it was completed;
- if it's in the present there's probably no need to be specific it is happening now.
The "evidence" I have for this tendency in the present tense is listening to cricket commentaries by former players from the Indian subcontinent. Some speak perfect English, they obviously learned it at a young age - but others are constantly using progressive, '-ing' form, verbs. What they are saying is certainly correct - it's just native speakers do not speak like that.

So, ignoring tenses which are both perfect and progressive, which are rarely ever used, These are the three present and past tenses to 'to run'.
Present Tenses
Simple ..... He runs
Perfect .... He has run
Progress ... He is running
Past Tenses
Simple ..... He ran
Perfect .... He had run
Progress ... He was running

My guess is, for present tenses, it will probably almost be okay to use 'He runs' instead of 'He is running', but if there is reason you need to be specific that the running has now stopped then you will need 'He has run'.
But for past tenses, it will probably almost be okay to use 'He ran' instead of 'He had run', but if there is reason you need to be specific that the running has taking place at that moment in the past then you will need 'He was running'.

YES! If you are writing in past tenses there may be places you have chosen 'had' but it can be removed without loss of meaning.
There will be times, when any "modal verb" is being used, when it will be a 'have' that is removed instead of a 'has'.
FYI, "modal verbs" are all of the conditional words often used in front of verbs, e.g. 'should', 'must', 'might', ...
Trust me on this one. :-) You DO NOT want to read the explanation of why that is so.

"He travelled" means he did it at the current time in the story.
"He had travelled" means he did it some time in the past from the current time in the story.

That's not how verb tenses work.
ALL of these relate to the current time in the story.
"He travelled" means at that earlier time may still have been been continuing (Simple Past Tense)
"He had travelled" means at that earlier time the travel was already completed (Past Perfect Tense)
"He has travelled" means at the current time the travel is completed (Present Perfect Tense)

If every story has a 'happy ending', then it blinds you to stronger alternative endings while might pack more power

Blowing a raspberry at that! The reason for a happy ending is to make you feel good. Keep your strong endings, which make me feel like kicking a dog, for yourself and other heartless monsters.

I think sometimes an author writes something he falls in love with.

I had a prologue I still like, but decided to delete it and reword the first scene of the first chapter to establish the MC's normal world.

I hit the topics that would be explored in detail later, each paragraph logically flowing into the next. Wonderful - but all telling.

I created events for which the descriptions would be a reaction. My mentor loved the opening line - but said it was still 70% telling.

I ripped out whole (lovely) paragraphs so that it's much more showing with only a sentence or two of the MC's reaction at the end of each section, with several items dropped totally, to be woven in later on.

Each version had some good stuff, but I'm now on the 4th.

I guess the "has sunk" could be "sank," but "has sunk" sounds better to my ear. So what's wrong with "has" here?

To me those two are different.
'Sank' suggests the spending is definitely not continuing any longer.
'Has sunk' does not say, but leaves open the possibility that more spending is still taking place.

'Sank' is the Past Simple Tense, a state of being. When a specific period of time is mentioned it suggests to be that state existed during that time - but not at other times.
'Has sunk' is the Past Perfect Tense. The thing that was completed was the amount of money spend, and the period mentions specifies when that was completed. It is not specific about the possibility of other money being spent at other times.

I cannot explain why the Past Simple and Past Perfect Tenses suggest those tings to me.

I'm happy you can't, because my very sensitive ears don't tell me anything like that. In that context 'sank' and 'has sunk' convey the same meaning to me. Although I'd agree with Switch, 'has sunk' sounds better.

I'm happy you can't (explain why the Past Simple and Past Perfect Tenses suggest those tings to me.)

I was editing out the words you quoted by me. I'm not sure I like my attempt to explain.

I agree 'has sunk' would sound better, in most circumstances.
To me, 'sank' would mean something like, 'has sunk, but no more'. I would not use 'sank' unless I wanted to make clear that was the end of it.

And that's why there's a place for has/had

And I have been cautioning it is needed in some places.
But CW is correct, IMHO, in suggesting that for past tense stories 'has/had' may be one of the most likely words that can be cut without affecting meaning.

I don't see how. If you don't use "had." you're using simple past tense.

All I am saying is there are many situations when the past perfect is technically correct, but native speakers will always prefer the past simple tense. One example is, 'I bought a car.'
If you're writing a past tense story it may be worth the effort to look specifically for those.

When we were first dating, we had an intense affair. We had shared adventures, had shared meals, had took vacations together. We had done everything together.

First, English isn't my native language and my grades in school were really bad. Later in college we had technical English (translating technical texts from English to German) and I got 'A's.
This said, for me in the example above 'took' is plain wrong. It should read 'had taken vacations together', shouldn't it?

HM.

This said, for me in the example above 'took' is plain wrong. It should read 'had taken vacations together', shouldn't it?

Germans... How goes the saying? 'A day late and a dollar short.'

This said, for me in the example above 'took' is plain wrong. It should read 'had taken vacations together', shouldn't it?

No.
Your English is quite impressive, I suggest you make the table in this Wiki your new BFF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_irregular_verbs
You new 2BFF could be:
http://www.the-conjugation.com/english/verb/take.php
This lists all tenses for a verb you enter, although I do not trust it for whether the spelling may require a consonant should be doubled.
This lists all the basic active tenses. I suspect there are a number of tenses missing when conditional auxiliary verbs are required. It certainly does not list anything with the passive voice, which would, exactly I think, double the length required for all intransitive verbs.

The entry for 'take' in this list is:

take -- took/*taked -- taken

All compound words ending in 'take', e.g. betake, intake, ..., have identical conjugations.

The listing of 'taked' was such a shock to me I looked for the explanation of the asterisk which was:

The table includes selected archaic forms, marked * (some of these forms may survive in dialectal or specialist uses).

The entry for each verb lists three forms:
- the infinitive form (aka main, base, root)
- the simple past tense
- the past participle
Note the past participle is used in forming all perfect tenses with the active voice, every tense with the passive voice, and when there is a need to have a verb, usng its past sense, as an ajective or noun.

All verbs, except the be-verb, have only five forms. The other two forms are so regular that there is no reason to list them. They are:
- the third-person singular present tense, with the 's' ending
- the progressive form, with the 'ing' ending
The ONLY irregularity in those is the 'has' form, instead of 'haves', for the have-verb.

There are, however, some unusual patterns in spelling depending on the ending of the infinitive form. These include whether an 'e' is added before an 's' ending, an 'e' is deleted before adding an 'ing' ending, a ending 'y' is changed to 'i', an ending consonant is doubled. I think (?) that's it.

I know the others instinctively, but I must look up dictionaries to check when a final consonant must be doubled. It's based on the number of syllables and which is emphasised in the pronunciation - and there are differences between British and American English. I'll never learn.

So to answer your question. These are all correct:
I took it. (the simple past tense)
... but ...
I had taken it. (using the past perfect tense)
It was taken by me. (using the passive voice of the simple past tense)
It was taken. (with 'taken' functioning as an adjective)
I was among the taken. (with 'taken' functioning as a noun)

Be careful what you ask for!

sink - present
sank - past
sunk - past perfect
Those are the tenses.

To be a little more precise, because 'sink' is one of the more irregular of the irregular verbs ...
'Sunk' is an acceptable alternative to 'sank' for the simple past tense of 'sink', probably used less often.
'Sunken' is an alternative to 'sunk' for the past participle of 'sink'. My guess is many would choose 'sunken' when using the passive voice, but it would rarely be used in perfect tenses or as an adjective.

Has/had is not a "to be" verb (be, am, is, are, was, were, being, been).
It has been raining all day (the "been" is the "to be" verb).
They say to avoid "was" because it could be passive voice (but not always). Also, sometimes you write "was running" when it's better to use "ran."

I agree with all those comments. Some related extra details are:
* * *
"To be" and "to have" are different verbs.
You list above is complete for the various forms for the be-verb. As a verb in its own right (meaning a state of existence) - it is extremely irregular.
* * *
The have-verb - as a verb in its own right (meaning to possess) - it is not very irregular. It has only these forms: 'have', 'has', 'having', 'had'.
Both the past participle and simple past tense is 'had'. 'Had' always indicates some past tense.
It also has an irregular third-person singular present tense, 'has' instead of 'haves'.
* * *
The main reason these two verbs confuse people is one or both are also required to form tenses that are formed with a multi-word verb phrase. I think the term is 'auxiliary verb', as opposed to the 'main or root verb' which is always the last word of a mulyi-word verb phrase.
* * *
How all the various tenses are formed is too complex to describe, but I can list some common facts that all verbs, except the be-verb:
- The presence of any form of the have-verb ('have', 'has', 'having', 'had') indicates a Perfect Tense, and its absence indicates it is not a Perfect Tense
- Likewise the presence/absence of any '-ing' ending indicates whether the verb phrase is/isn't a Progressive Tense
- With one exception, the presence/absence of any of these words - 'was', 'were', 'had', 'been' - indicates whether the verb phrase is/isn't a Past Tense. The exception is the Simple Past Tense which just has a single word ending in '-ed' if the verb is regular, and often '-en' or 't' when irregular.

First of all, you wouldn't replace "has sunk" with "sank" ... You've got your tenses confused.

No, those tenses are correct.
The verb 'to sink' has alternative past participles and simple past tenses.
The past participle may be 'sunk' or 'sunken'.
The simple past tense may be 'sank' or 'sunk'.
I guess there are regional variations in which tends to be used, and in which circumstances.
'Sank' may well sound wrong to your ear, but many would feel the same if 'sunk' was used instead.

Many authors (the classically bestseller authors among them) have long lamented the use of be-verbs and recommend avoiding them. It just takes most of us time to figure out the mechanisms to properly replace them on the fly.

I've heard that suggestion often enough and I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering 'Why?' and 'How?'
Is this something like the advice to avoid adverbs. I understand the real meaning of that to be avoid using an adverb to make a dull verb more interesting; look for a interesting verb to achieve the same thing instead.
Does the advice about avoiding be-verbs really mean this? Avoid using the be-verb and an interesting adjective or adverb; look for a interesting verb to achieve the same thing instead.

There are, damn!, the dreaded 'There is/was' sentences too. They can often be cut out as easily as a superfluous 'that'.

Is this something like the advice to avoid adverbs. I understand the real meaning of that to be avoid using an adverb to make a dull verb more interesting; look for a interesting verb to achieve the same thing instead.

Does the advice about avoiding be-verbs really mean this? Avoid using the be-verb and an interesting adjective or adverb; look for a interesting verb to achieve the same thing instead.

No, it's the same venue as the proposition to prevent the use of 'filler' and 'filter words', whenever possible. The goal is to tighten your writing by disposing of every superfluous word in a sentence. It's a matter of style, and suposedly the taste of time.

CW' example was a good one:

When we were first dating, we had an intense affair. We had shared adventures, had shared meals, had took vacations together. We had done everything together.

Grammatically correct but of abysmal quality as a piece of writing art.

ETA: The transformation of the example. Sounds still pretty shitty.

When we first dated, we had an intense affair. We shared adventures and meals, took vacations together. We did everything together.

ETA: The transformation of the example. Sounds still pretty shitty.
When we first dated, we had an intense affair. We shared adventures and meals, took vacations together. We did everything together.

Is that really all?
If so, I don't see why be-verbs needs be mentioned. That's just the routine idea of using as few words as possible, provided you don't compromise clarity or ease of reading.
My version of the above would be:

ETA: My transformed example sounds less shitty.
When we first dated, it was intense. We shared adventures, meals, and even vacations; we did everything together.

The problem is the part in the middle.

When we first dated, it was intense. We shared adventures, meals, and even vacations; we did everything together.

It can't be solved by shortening the sentence. I'll show what I mean, instead of telling it:

In the past I was helpless. Nowadays, armed with my nail clipper and a bazooka, I was always ready to strike. I took them with me wherever I went.

In the past I was helpless. Nowadays, armed with my nail clipper and a bazooka, I was always ready to strike. I took them with me wherever I went.

I suspect you mean to continue your post, but the first thing to do with this one is:

In the past I was helpless. Nowadays, I take my nail clippers and bazooka wherever I go. I'm always ready to strike.

I suspect you mean to continue your post

Nope, it's a riddle.

Nope, it's a riddle.

Okay. I'm going to test the theory about not be able to fire a bazooka through a computer screen.

Ha! You focus too much on the tenses.

When we first dated, it was intense. We shared adventures, meals, and even vacations; we did everything together.

Adventures - meals - vacations. One of these words falls way short to describe an intense relationship.

Ha! You focus too much on the tenses.

Often an editor feels obligated to allow the author's crappy ideas through - and just make the most of what they've been given - no matter how tasteless the food may be.
This was one such occasion.

This was one such occasion.

And you should pardon my 'nail clipper and bazooka' analogy.

And you should pardon my 'nail clipper and bazooka' analogy.

Now that I get the joke - that bazooka was pointed at me - Ha! Ha! Ha!
But I actually did ponder how to best hide the word 'meals'.

it may indicate some things you don't want, like passive voice.

Thanks, I can see that.
In fact, I'd suggest the presence of a be-verb should be a red flag prompting the question, 'Have I chosen the right subject for this sentence?'
If you answer that correctly you will find all inappropriate passive voice sentences, and all needless 'There is/was' sentences. YEAH.

I just had a Eureka! moment which will interest everybody else about as much as StarFleet Carl's discovery that some readers don't start reading stories until they're complete. Sorry Carl. :-)

I noticed another yes-or-no pattern in the formation of verb tenses.
There are ONLY two conditions for which the be-verb can appear within a verb phrase - excluding the be-verb itself.
1. For all progressive tenses, but only progressive tenses, there is some form of the be-verb immediately before the root verb which then has the '-ing' ending.
2. For tenses using the passive voice, but only the passive voice, there is some form of the be-verb immediately before the past participle of the verb.
[And if both there will be some form of the 'be-verb', then 'being', the the past participle.]
This little ex-IT worker is very excited by this revelation.

I'll wait a moment until you all stop yawning, frowning, or scratching your head. I'm about to tell you something that may be helpful to you if you take notice of it.

What SB said is spot on, with one exception.
- (Almost) every time you see any form of the be-verb being used you should ask whether you have chosen the right subject for your sentence.
- The exception is when it's followed by any verb with an '-ing' ending. If you've written one of those I can guarantee you had a good reason for wanting to be specific the action was happening at that moment.

THAT'S IT. Checking for that will improve your writing, and I don't care whether anyone believes me or not.

What about, "Joe is black"?
That's not passive or progressive.

Yes, that is the be-verb itself.
I was thinking 'excluding the be-verb itself' when writing that, and included 'within a verb phrase'.

The next pat of my post, what authors should check for, does include the be-verb itself.
For example, when I write, "I am being an arsehole," I would have a specific reason for wanting to indicate the action was limited to that moment. :-)
I have corrected my post.

@Switch Blayde
So like an adverb, "was" is also a red flag which means the sentence should be evaluated. It may be fine, or it may indicate some things you don't want, like passive voice.

@Crumbly Writer
A wonderful summation. Much clearer than my belabored explanations.

Yes it was, and much clearer than mine too.

The end result of my detailed analysis came out as precisely what SB stately so simply. The only note I could add is it would be worthwhile specifically asking whether you have used the correct subject in sentences you find containing a be-verb. If you torture the language to write the same meaning with a different subject it's almost inevitable some form of the be-verb will end up in there somewhere.

I made one observation along the way which may be useful for others to be aware of. It was there are only two ways be-verbs can be used inside a multi-word verb phrase.
- One is whenever any progressive tense is used. They require the be-verb before a main verb ending with '-ing'. They will usually be okay because writers rarely use progressive tenses unless they have a specific need to use one.
- The other is whenever the passive voice has been used. They require the be-verb before the past participle of the main verb. They are always worth examining to check whether the best subject for the sentence is being used.

Okay, I will do my best to answer your question but I would admit to never really understanding what functions 'gerunds' serve within sentences.

There are (at least) three ways the '-ing' forms of verbs can be used and the most common are:
1. In progressive tenses of verbs, i.e. when used as the action performed by the subject of a sentence (or clause)
2. As 'present participles' commonly used as adjectives, but I think also as adverbs and even nouns
3. As a 'gerund' commonly used as adverbial phrases.

Examples of these three are:
1. I am walking to the shops.
2. The shops are within walking distance.
3. While walking to the shops, I stopped for an ice cream.

I think the first two are self-explanatory, but for the third the best I can do is quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English

An -ing form is termed gerund when it behaves as a verb within a clause (so that it may be modified by an adverb or have an object); but the resulting clause as a whole (sometimes consisting of only one word, the gerund itself) functions as a noun within the larger sentence.

The point I was making above is that when writers use an '-ing' ending as a verb they have usually made a conscious decision that the progressive tense was needed. As all verbs using progressive tenses require some form of be-verb, and no verbs using non-progressive tenses, and in the active voice, can include the be-verb, I suggested it should be okay when you find that type of be-verb.

The thing I notice in your writing is how frequently you use gerunds. You use them correctly but too often for my tastes. I would write a proportion of your sentences containing a gerund and a verb with ones containing two verbs and a common subject. The result would have less commas but would certainly also have a few extra words. That compromise sounds better to me, but I could not argue it "is better".

you claim that gerunds tend to force the use of be-verbs

NO.
I said progressive tenses force the use of a be-verb, not that gerunds do.
If your example sentence you could write:

The physician is/was leading them to a central location, with hospital staff busy working around a prone figure.

I'm not at all clear what a progressive tense is ...
In short, are the distinctions really that essential to understand? Or are you just explaining what we're already intuitively coping with?

Q. Am I just explaining what we're already intuitively coping with?
A. Yes and No. (Sorry, but that is my honest answer)

Yes, because it is extremely rare for a native speaker (excluding colloquial expressions) to say something that is not both (a) a valid verb tense, and (b) an acceptable tense for their intended meaning.

No, because some of us here are happy to make extra efforts so that we are using the best tense for our intended meaning.

As for what are progressive (aka continuous) tenses and what are not, here are some examples:

Present & Incomplete
- I eat
- I am eating

Past & Incomplete
- I ate
- I was eating

Future & Incomplete
- I will eat
- I will be eating

Present & Incomplete
- I have eaten
- I have been eating

Past & Incomplete
- I had eaten
- I had been eating

Present & Incomplete
- I will have eaten
- I will have been eating

It is my contention that any writer who chose the second instead of the first from any one of those pairs will have a good reason for doing so.
Assuming that is so, and you are one of those authors who wants to examine whether they have chosen the best verb tenses - then you should examine every other type of be-verb you find - the exception being anything with any form of the be-verb followed by a main verb with an '-ing' ending. I suggest the right question to ask when examining be-verbs is whether you have chosen the best subject for the sentence.

If you can't get your head around this, then check every be-verb you find.

The physician led them to a central location, with hospital staff busy working around a prone figure.

In your sample sentence, I think, and I cannot really get my head around this either:
'working' functions as a verb within the second phrase. It's subject is 'hospital staff', and both 'busy' and 'around a prone figure' are adverbs describing 'working'.

BUT within the entire sentence:
Everything after the comma is an adverbial phrase describing 'led'. That consists of the preposition 'with' and the rest serving the function of a noun. It blows my mind, but that sentence makes sense if all of that was replaced by 'with' and a simple noun, for example 'style'.

Please don't shoot me. I'm only the messenger.

The physician led them to a central location, with hospital staff busy working around a prone figure.

Sounds off to my native ear. I find myself asking where, and would say or write

The physician led them to a central location, where hospital staff were busy working around a prone figure.

@Crumbly Writer

The physician led them to a central location, with hospital staff busy working around a prone figure.

"busy" is an adverb of "working" and should be "busily." And you did not switch to present tense with "working."

Hmm,
as already stated in other posts Englisch isn't native to me. I reread the sentence a few times and to me 'busy' is ambiguous. It could be used as adjective of 'hospital staff' like in 'with busy hospital staff working around a prone figure'. Or as you said as adverb of 'working'.
Am I wrong? Must the adjective inevitably come before the noun?

HM.

...an adverb must come before the verb it's modifying...

"Admittedly, I'm no expert either, but I doubt the accuracy of this statement," he voiced his opinion guardedly.

Edited to amuse myself.

Mind you, in your original post the guardedly is more a misplaced adjective to modify the noun opinion but you're moving off into the murky field of misused English.

With all due respect, I formulated my response properly. You simply changed a part of it but that didn't make it more proper. Your dislike of '-ly' adverbs doesn't equal a grammatical mistake.

ETA.

That aside,

to be proper formal English the adverb must come before the verb it's modifying

is simply wrong.

She sang very well. Change that sentence into proper English.

Adjectives and adverbs are meant to be right beside the nouns and verbs they're qualifying, and they are supposed to precede them.

So it should be: She very well sang?

So it should be: She very well sang?

No ... but there's a baby in that bath water (EB's over-simplification) you may be about to throw out.

There is immense freedom in where you may place adverbs to create different nuances of meaning. Adverbs most commonly are placed before the verbs they modify, but there are times where they only sound natural after the noun.

There is a valuable warning contained in what EB has said. You can totally change the meaning of a sentence by putting an adverb in the wrong position. Consider this example:

He placed one down. He dropped the next picking it up.

Suppose you want to use the adverb 'carefully' to modify placed. You could use either, 'He placed one down carefully' or 'He carefully placed one down'.
But look what happens if you want to join those two sentences using the conjunction 'but'.
You can have, 'He placed one down carefully but dropped the next picking it up'.
You cannot have, 'He carefully placed one down but dropped the next picking it up'.
The second one means he was careful when dropping the next one.

Once you start building complex sentences where words in earlier clauses are implied in later ones you need to be cautious that the position of adverbs ensures they only modify the verbs you intend them to modify.

Once you start building complex sentences where words in earlier clauses are implied in later ones you need to be cautious that the position of adverbs ensures they only modify the verbs you intend them to modify.

Shrugs - Caution is always advised when creating long sentences, if you even feel the need for a long, complex sentence. That doesn't make 'adverbs must come before the modified verb' a correct statement.

That doesn't make 'adverbs must come before the modified verb' a correct statement.

Agreed. That statement is on the opposite side of the planet to "correct".

EB:
...an adverb must come before the verb it's modifying...

You:
"Admittedly, I'm no expert either, but I doubt the accuracy of this statement," he voiced his opinion guardedly.

That one you may shout out loud. You may shout out loudly too. Note that 'Loud' is usually an adjective, but here you may use either 'loud' or 'loudly' as an adverb modifying the phrasal verb 'to shout out', and the adverb comes after the verb it modifies.

I think that 'busy' in 'hospital staff busy working' is similar to that. I consider it is functioning as an adverb to modify 'working', but I'm not certain of that.

With adverbs, they may boldly go anywhere, go boldly anywhere, or go anywhere boldly.

I'm not willing to comment on EB's other statement that adjectives can only go before a noun. My guess is that if you manage to place an adjective after a noun the result will function as a noun phrase (of the noun + adjective type). That would make EB's statement correct that anything functioning as an adjective to modify a noun must be placed before the noun.
[There is an irrelevant and different type of situation where an adjective is separated from its noun by a verb, e.g. I am happy]

But this all becomes very messy if you rely on dictionaries to tell something is a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb. You can use most of those as pretty much any of the others - the thing to be careful of is not to press one part of speech into service as another if there is already as accepted word with the part of speech you want and the same root word.

I'm not willing to comment on EB's other statement that adjectives can only go before a noun.

I thought about it some more. I even read some...woe is me. It's interesting how easy it is to forget so many examples one should've been able to remember when this question occurred:

He is the devil incarnate.
Her baby is ten months old.
Let's use the time available.
I'd like to speak to all the people involved.

I guess that answers this question.

He is the devil incarnate.
Her baby is ten months old.
Let's use the time available.
I'd like to speak to all the people involved.

I guess that answers this question.

Three out of four, incarnate, available, and involved, are without doubt adjectives modifying the noun they follow.

But ten months old is a three word adjectival phrase. The noun months is modified by ten, but the noun phrase ten months is then functioning as an adjective to modify the adjective old.

The assertion above is incorrect. There are certainly occasions when (words functioning as) adjectives are placed after the (word functioning as a) noun which they are modifying.

WELL DONE!

I guess that answers this question.

CMOS has an answer for that too. In a section titled 'Position of Adjectives' it has a not-so-basic paragraph 5.78 titled 'Basic Rules'.

An adjective that modifies a noun, noun phrase, or pronoun usually precedes it [perfect storm, spectacular view, a good bowl of soup].
An adjective may follow the noun if
(1) special emphasis is needed [reasons innumerable, captains courageous];
(2) it occurs in this position in standard usage [court-martial, notary public];
(3) it is a predicate adjective following a linking verb [I am ready]; or
(4) the pronoun is of a type usually followed by the adjective [anything good, everything yellow, nothing important, something wicked].
Some adjectives are always in the predicate and never appear before what they modify [the city is asleep, the door was ajar].
Others appear uniformly before the nouns they modify [utter nonsense, a mere child].
Phrasal adjectives may precede or follow what they modify.
See 5.91.

Trust me, you do not want to "see 5.91"!

Actually, "busy" in the sentence should be "busily" because it's an adverb modifying the verb "working."

Maybe the confusion is caused by that error.

While we talk about minimizing 'be' verbs and adverbs, people are doing it in everyday speech.

"The lawn needs mowed bad."

"The lawn needs mowed bad."

The sad reality is, if you write such a sentence, even as a part of a dialogue, you get a dozen reader comments telling you what an idiot you are.

The sad reality is, if you write such a sentence, even as a part of a dialogue, you get a dozen reader comments telling you what an idiot you are.

True, but that's speech I hear every day. I will put it in dialogue, and vary it by character. The college educated dad in my story speaks much better than his parents or brother back on the farm, but there's still a base level of idioms that everyone uses.

ETA: Actually, "busy" in the sentence should be "busily" because it's an adverb modifying the verb "working."

YES AND NO!

The general question is: What restrictions exist on taking words defined by dictionaries as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, and using them as any of those other parts of speech?

The short answer is:

There is only one restriction. Thou shalt not use an adjective as an adverb. Thou shalt add a '-ly' ending to it instead.
But there are exceptions. :(

This is how I understand things, but I'm willing to do some research if anyone provides examples or references contradicting me.

The general principle is while it is permissible to use all these parts of speech almost interchangeably, you should not use anything else as, for example, an adjective if another word already exists using the same root word which is specifically an adjective.
Also, some adjectives sound silly if a '-ly' ending is added, e.g. sillily.
Also, native speakers are sweeping aside dictionary definitions of what may only be considered an adjective, e.g. 'drive slow', 'keep busy'.

Actually, "busy" in the sentence should be "busily" because it's an adverb modifying the verb "working."

Actually, I think 'busy' is a rare exception to that. Although technically it is an adjective and 'busily' the adverb, I think native speakers are sweeping that distinction away. In 'Keep busy!', the 'busy' is functioning as an adverb and 'Keep busily' sounds unnatural.
I think busy sounds just as natural in our example sentence.

But you're right about the general principle of (almost) always add a '-ly' ending to anything defined as an adjective before using it as an adverb.

In 'Keep busy!', the 'busy' is functioning as an adverb and 'Keep busily' sounds unnatural.
I think busy sounds just as natural in our example sentence.

Right. It depends on the sentence construction. "The staff was busy with the project" or "the staff worked busily on the project" are both acceptable.

I see now the difference in my examples is the use of 'be' before busy.

"The staff was busy with the project" or "the staff worked busily on the project" are both acceptable.
I see now the difference in my examples is the use of 'be' before busy.

Yes. I'm fairly sure the be-verb cannot be modified by an adverb. 'Is' just ... is! So what follows it must be an adjective, in what is called the "predicate position".

I suspect that also applies to all linking verbs, which include feel, seem, think, ...
I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, but don't want to look it up myself in CMOS. You've seen how "simply" it manages to explain some "basic rules".

He was running to the store.

That could be what the author had in mind, but often what he meant was:

He ran to the store.
The difference is, in the first, he's not at the store yet. In the second, he is.

I agree with you those two are different, and what the difference is.
In my experience it is extremely rare for anyone to write the first if the meaning of the second would be suitable for their sentence.
If you find a lot in your writing, I would conclude you are one of the few who ever put them there.

"Started" is another example.
I started to rub her clit until she came.
They usually mean "I rubbed her clit."

Another one I look out for is the to-form of verbs. I try to reserve those for when there is an intended consequence and often replace them with the '-ing' form - meaning the present participle being used as a gerund, not as a verb using a progressive tense.

He didn't start to follow her. He followed her.

It is poor writing that I try to avoid, but the action did indeed start at a certain point in time, which is when he got up - but that makes it redundant.

Again, forgive me for asking stupid questions (since I don't get most of this stuff), what's the difference between "I was running to the story when it started to rain" and "I ran to the story when it started to rain"?

1. While you were running to the store it started to rain (rain happened while running was in progress)
2. It started to rain at which time you ran to the store (running started when it started to rain)

you miss the most dangerous one - bzzzzz.

Buzz off! :-)

In you sentence - She sang very well. - only one word is being modified, that word is well and the modifier is the word very just before it. Neither of those words are modifying sang.

Wrong again. 'Very' modifies 'well', but 'well' is fuctioning as adverb to 'sang'.

Wrong again. 'Very' modifies 'well', but 'well' is fuctioning as adverb to 'sang'.

You are right again. 'Very' modifies 'well', and 'very well' modifies 'sang'.

well is not modifying sang at all. It describes it.

NOPE.
When it comes to adverbs and adjectives, 'describe' means precisely the same thing as 'modify'.

well is not modifying sang at all. It describes it.

A word describing a noun is called an adjective. A word describing a verb is called adverb. If you call their influence modifying or describing is insignificant in this context.

A word describing a noun is called an adjective. A word describing a verb is called adverb. If you call their influence modifying or describing is insignificant in this context.

May I make a suggestion
- TO SOMEONE who tries to remain polite at all times
- FROM SOMEONE with has many battle scars accumulated on this site.

This has all the hallmarks of those times when EB enters the Twilight Zone and will not stop stating the same thing over and over again.
It does matter what you say when he gets like that.
I suggest, for your peace of mind, you ignore him if he continues on like this.
I, OTOH, might get quite rude over my next few posts, before then giving up.

This has all the hallmarks of those times when EB enters the Twilight Zone and will not stop stating the same thing over and over again.
It does matter what you say when he gets like that.
I suggest, for your peace of mind, you ignore him if he continues on like this.
I, OTOH, might get quite rude over my next few posts, before then giving up.

I live and learn. EB just started the 'bold letter' phase, so I personally doubt he already reached the obstinacy realm. Most importantly, I also doubt becoming impolite in a discussion serves any purpose at all. I just often wonder why some people can't admit a simple mistake.

I just often wonder why some people can't admit a simple mistake.

You attitude seems healthy to me.
EB's actually been quite good ever since The-Incident-that-Shall-NEVER-be-Mentioned-Again.
I am hopeful a bazooka across the bow will be enough to end this one here.

I also doubt becoming impolite in a discussion serves any purpose at all.

As an editor I suggest replacing (a) the words 'also doubt' with 'know', and the words 'any purpose' with 'no constructive'.
Some find their fun in different places. :-)

-

As an editor I suggest replacing (a) the words 'also doubt' with 'know', and the words 'any purpose' with 'no constructive'.

Some find their fun in different places. :-)

Let's see:

I know becoming impolite in a discussion serves no constructive at all.

That sounds weird to me.

That sounds weird to me.

Yep. It was meant to come out
I know becoming impolite in a discussion serves no constructive purpose at all.

'Know' conveys 100% certainty whereas 'doubt' has uncertainty (but perhaps you are spot on.)

Maybe it's the calm before the storm.

I know Ross is off writing, something which I should bring myself to do as well.

I'm stuck on Chapter 21 on my WIP. Everything I write at the place I'm at sucks. I know what I want to write; it's just not working.

Same thing happened to me. Not that it sucked, but nothing came to mind. The characters didn't dance in my head.

So I did some more detailed outlining, making a list of all remaining scenes along with a brief description. Then a first draft of the last few scenes of the book. Then a rewrite of the opening scene of the first chapter.

I haven't progressed in my current chapter, but I've done constructive things.

But whatever I write sounds crumby.

Switch off you inner Vincent, Switch. :-)

But whatever I write sounds crumby.

What's the meaning of 'crumby'. I think I read it once before but it isn't in my dictionary. Is it the same as 'crumbly' or closer to 'crummy', or naybe a mix of both?

What's the meaning of 'crumby'. I think I read it once before but it isn't in my dictionary. Is it the same as 'crumbly' or closer to 'crummy', or naybe a mix of both?

'crummy' is the correct spelling for the word meaning of poor quality.
'crumbly' means inclined to fall apart into crumbs.

'crummy' is the correct spelling for the word meaning of poor quality.

'crumbly' means inclined to fall apart into crumbs.

Again, I'm not nitpicking. I read 'crumby' before and wanted to know its meaning.

ETA: nevermind, I googled it. It's quite famous because the term is used by Salinger in 'The catcher in the rye'. It's a variant of "crummy". When talking about a living space, it means shabby, cheap, dirty, unpleasant, etc.

'Crumby' exists in dictionary.com as an adjective meaning full or crumbs.
My Oxford dictionary only listed 'crumb' and 'crumbly', but the adjectival form certainly exists too.

Anyone want a piece of crummy, crumby cake?

I read 'crumby' before and wanted to know its meaning.

Nothing that I know of. I agree with Ross that SB and perhaps others simply misspelled 'crummy.'

I agree with Ross that SB and perhaps others simply misspelled 'crummy.'

I just edited an earlier post to add this:

Anyone want a piece of crummy, crumby cake?

EDIT TO ADD:
Possible story idea ending with a pastry chef murdering a food critic.

Nothing that I know of. I agree with Ross that SB and perhaps others simply misspelled 'crummy.'

crummy adj (crummier, crummiest) colloq, derog shoddy, dingy, dirty or generally inferior. crumminess noun.
ETYMOLOGY: 19c: variant of crumby.

ETYMOLOGY: 19c: variant of crumby.

If you write a story based in London the 19th century, it may be crumby.

If you write a story based in London the 19th century, it may be crumby.

'The Catcher in the Rye' isn't quite that old.

'The Catcher in the Rye' isn't quite that old.

Early 1950's, set in New York. Did it is crumby? I read it recently, but don't recall. The author did make use of double contractions, such as wouldn't've.

Early 1950's, set in New York. Did it use crumby? I read it recently, but don't recall.

'The catcher in the rye' by J. D. Salinger: "That isn't too far from this crumby place, and he comes over and visits me."

"That isn't too far from this crumby place, and he comes over and visits me."

Good catch.

'The Catcher in the Rye' isn't quite that old.
Early 1950's, set in New York. Did it is crumby?

Yep. In the opening paragraph he uses 'crumby' to mean 'shitty'. :(

Guess I should have said shitty. :)

Even if it isn't true, could you please pretend 'crumby' wasn't just a spelling mistake.

I didn't think "crumby" was a spelling error.

Thank you!

I didn't think "crumby" was a spelling error.

You don't have to know it's an error for it to be one.

I didn't think "crumby" was a spelling error.

dictionary.com lists 'crumby' as an alternative spelling of 'crummy'.
So, I'm not going to declare I think it's a pretty crummy novel because of its spelling.

So, I'm not going to declare I think it's a pretty crummy novel because of its spelling.

It was interesting.

I'm still convinced that he ended up in the mental hospital because his sister fell off the merry-go-round and died, haunting him just as his brother's death earlier did.

could you please pretend 'crumby' wasn't just a spelling mistake.

Perhaps we can use this to our advantage going the other way. Maybe we could sometimes use 'crummly' here and claim it was just a spelling mistake. :-)

Perhaps we can use this to our advantage going the other way.

Far be it from me to address someone as crumby writer.

It's not that I don't know what to write.

Oh, I understand. I know just what I want to write in my scene. But it isn't flowing yet.

@jplong
I know Ross is off writing

@Awnlee
I find that curiously ambiguous.

Yes, AJ, my muse is paying me a visit and I am writing fiction.
The conclusion to the scene I managed today is:

"And those …" gasped Ginnie, who for once in her life was at a complete loss finding suitable words to convey her horror, "… on his face!"
"Run for hills, everybody. Krakatoa is about to blow," giggled Chas, who did manage to find suitable words.
"Dis–- gust–- ing," agreed Ginnie. "But you'd still …? Wouldn't you?"
"Duh. Does Donald Trump still eat children for breakfast?"
"And he has big hands."

by some accounts, it is a darling and you should murder it :(

It's only a 'darling' if the rest is not in a similar style.
It will be, mercifully, short.

that is supposed to be mashed ego. Because it's fully smashed and mixed about.

And very yucky to pick up.

This editor suggests replacing 'smashed ego' with 'shattered ego'.

My ego feels smashed but of course an editor knows much better how I feel.

Really? It's quite common to savage an author for bad writing, but how often does an editor get savaged for bad editing?

Ever try two editors at once? They may start bickering over effective phrasings.

Really?

No, of course not 'really'. You just have to be indulgent with editors. Once their fragile little egos get hurt, they never fully recover and become pretty much useless.

I'm glad I was able to get you guys typing again. In your absence I was reduced to arguing politics on Twitter.

A pleasure to be at your service.