Back when "pharoah" was in the new-word section of the dictionary, I was taught that "anyways" was wrong, substandard, incorrect.
I see it used frequently in SOL stories, not just in dialogue. When I searched for "anyways" precisely 1000 stories met the search criteria (I don't know whether it was actually 1000 or that's just the cutoff point).
Have things changed since days of yore and "anyways" is now standard, or at least acceptable?
I may be older than you.
I was taught the same thing. That doesn't mean that either:
Younger writers were taught the same thing, or
That they follow that rule.
Anyway, I don't restrict sloppy language to dialogue. First-Person stories are really told by the narrator, who might not always use correct English.
Interesting comments on the subject by Grammar Girl: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/anyway-or-anyways
Too much to copy here. But one interesting point is that "anyway" as an adverb was "anyways" like "always" and "sometimes", but for some reason "anyway" dropped it while the others didn't.
Also, "anyways" isn't new. It goes back to the 1200s, but there seems to be a rise in it's use in the 1960s.
I don't know.
I think I restrict my usage of anyways to dialog, but maybe that is wishful thinking.
I try to write dialog that sounds like I speak; that reads back to me as actual conversations, not stilted monologues. Conversational English, especially American English, is much different than what I was taught in the school room.
Conversational English, especially American English, is much different than what I was taught in the school room.
An example, in conversation, I might hear someone say, "It ain't no good.", instead of "It isn't any good."
"It ain't no good."
Ah, the double negative - the speaker is actually implying that 'it' is good! :)
AJ
the speaker is actually implying that 'it' is good!
I would make a guess that you've not spent much time in verbal conversation with rural Americans.
Just be very careful is you ever have a Texan tell you, "Bless your heart." You aren't just treading upon thin ice at that point. :)
Just be very careful is you ever have a Texan tell you, "Bless your heart." You aren't just treading upon thin ice at that point. :)
Bodies of water freeze over in Texas?
AJ
Just be very careful is you ever have a Texan tell you, "Bless your heart." You aren't just treading upon thin ice at that point. :)
From anyone from any of the former confederate states.
If it's not followed up with anything else, they are basically calling you an idiot.
If they do follow up on it, it roughly translates to "I am about to insult your ass seven ways from Sunday, but you don't get to be mad about it."
Forget rural Americans. Always, and everywhere, when in spoken English, a double (or more) negative is always emphatic. Even the English masters are (finally) starting to recognize this. Though I still wouldn't use a double negative when writing third person, I'd have no problems using them in dialogue or when writing first person.
Forget rural Americans. Always, and everywhere, when in spoken English, a double (or more) negative is always emphatic.
Except when the speaker is trying to ensure no possibility of confusion, as seems to be the norm in the UK.
I'd like to see English become more logical, not less.
AJ
Always, and everywhere, when in spoken English, a double (or more) negative is always emphatic.
You've never been in a conversation with a group of mathematicians, have you?
Conversational English, especially American English, is much different than what I was taught in the school room.
From what I have observed, the written word, especially formal documents, is generally subject to a set of rules. Conversations follow the basics of the rules, but vary from the rules according to the speaker's background and educational level.
In a story, the narrative should follow the rules while the dialog is whatever works for the characters.
In a story, the narrative should follow the rules while the dialog is whatever works for the characters.
As the Pendragon suggests, in many stories, particularly in 1st person, the narrative is as much character voice as the dialogue.
In a story, the narrative should follow the rules while the dialog is whatever works for the characters.
Really? Let's say I'm reading a first-person story narrated by a hard-bitten NYC detective circa 1995:
In an endeavor to remain unobserved, I secreted myself behind a sizeable waste collection vehicle....
No, I hid my ass behind a garbage truck.
(With a dictionary, so I could figure out what endeavor and secreted mean.)
Makes a terrible mess.
There is slow motion video out there of a couple of idiots shooting prairie dogs with a high caliber sniper rifle. they basically explode on impact.
It'd be fun to shoot a few with the 20mm sniper rifle I saw a while back.
Not sure if it'd be enough fun to be worth spending for more than a round or two... they weren't cheap. But for turning a target into red mist, that would be the way to go.
It'd be fun to shoot a few with the 20mm sniper rifle I saw a while back.
It's would take a hell of a lot of paperwork to be able to own something like that in an operable state.
The NFA generally prohibits civilian ownership of anything over .50 caliber and a 20mm would be .79
That's not a sniper rifle, it's an anti-tank weapon.
Friends with a law enforcement exemption make that less onerous.
And yeah, I figure it would be a decent stand-off weapon against most WWII tanks.
It's interesting people think nothing is wrong when the English language is used incorrectly, yet in another thread someone said: "Otherwise I'd have to believe that recent educational standards have fallen to such low levels."
Let's not simply blame the education system. Some of the blame rests on people who don't follow what they were taught. Yeah, we're all individuals. Of course that's the argument some use for not wearing masks.
