Forum: Author Hangout

'The soft breaths tickling his chest" may make a sound but they are no sound.

But even if they don't make a sound that your ear picks up, the tactile sensory nerves in bare skin being breathed on would feel the air movement.

And if that would have been questioned, your comment would rightfully start with a 'but'.

I'm seriously tempted to add a smiley but I refrain out of principle!

I'd rephrase it slightly:
The only sounds in Lincoln Steele's bedroom was the soft breathing which also tickled his chest.

An improvement I think, but change 'was' to 'were'.
I suggest changing 'was the soft breathing' to 'were from soft breathing' to overcome the problem of breathing not being a noise.
Also, the relative clause created by using 'which' is non-restrictive, so technically it should be set off with a comma.
I'd prefer:

The only sounds in Lincoln Steele's bedroom were from soft breathing, which was also tickling his chest.

My choice would be

The only sounds in Lincoln Steele's bedroom came from the soft breaths, which also tickled his chest.

My choice would be
The only sounds in Lincoln Steele's bedroom came from the soft breaths, which also tickled his chest.

I'm comfortable with that. It was the version I was considering until a late change to prefer 'was tickling' over 'tickled'.

To make sure the reader isn't confused

How many readers do you actually think would wonder if the breaths were coming from his next door neighbor or a burglar about to stab him with a knife rather than whomever he went to bed with?

Generally, when you establish someone, you don't leave the readers hanging

True, but there is probably much more context here.

The text is identified as the first paragraph of "a" chapter, it's not explicitly cited as the first chapter.

If the end of the previous chapter showed the MC going to bed with someone specific, then the reader is not at all left hanging by not immediately identifying the breather.

There is no reasonable confusion. The only reasonable conclusion about the breather is who he went to bed with at the end of the prior chapter.

There is no reasonable confusion. The only reasonable conclusion about the breather is who he went to bed with at the end of the prior chapter.

Except he went to bed with one woman and woke up with another woman in his bed.

HM.

Except he went to bed with one woman and woke up with another woman in his bed.

1. Unlikely in the extreme.

2. If that were the case, she shouldn't be named before the mc realizes that the person in bed with him is not the person he expected.

Generally, when you establish someone, you don't leave the readers hanging, wondering who it is.

Since the very first word in the next sentence of the original paragraph identified the breather, I don't see it as leaving the reader hanging at all.

I changed it to:
The only sound in Lincoln Steele's bedroom was the soft breathing that tickled his chest.

I'd definitely change 'that' to 'which'. What follows is adding information about the breathing, not identifying it.

Her eyes popped opened.

Aside from this mistake, it looks good to me.

I don't know about the edits, but that is one hell of a teaser for the story. I'm looking forward to reading it!

I think "nuzzling" would fit better.

I agree that is much better. While grinding does not always mean 'physically removing something'; it always suggests the use of considerable force.

The eyes popping open don't bother me at all.

The error robberhands spotted was 'popped opened'.

Ross was the one who insisted "which" demands a preceding commas (I wouldn't add one in that context).

More precisely, I insisted "which" technically demands a preceding comma when the relative clause is non-restrictive, and this one clearly was.
I think editors should feel obliged to suggest such commas but authors are not obliged to obey them. :(

...the noise of the...

Noise, to me, is an annoying sound. Maybe she was snoring softly?

Noise, to me, is an annoying sound. Maybe she was snoring softly?

OK, how about "whisper" which suggests a very slight sound, even a touch of romanticism?

Noise, to me, is an annoying sound. Maybe she was snoring softly?

OK, how about "whisper" which suggests a very slight sound, even a touch of romanticism?

The only sound in Lincoln Steele's bedroom was the whisper of the soft breaths tickling his chest.

Oooh. I like that much better.

The only sound in Lincoln Steele's bedroom was the whisper of the soft breaths tickling his chest.

Oooh. I like that much better.

YES!!! but how about changing "the soft...." to "her soft ..." ?
Nice and intimate

What sound does a tickled chest make?

Giggling/laughing. Duh!

The only sound ... was the whisper of Tiffany's soft breaths ...

That works. It's when you then add 'tickling his chest' that it goes awry :(

AJ

The only sound in Lincoln Steele's bedroom were Tiffany's soft breaths. Lying on her side next to him, an arm flung over his belly, her breathing tickled his chest hairs. Her nude body stirred as sleep faded, her legs stretching out and folding at the knees, followed by her face burrowing into his chest.

"breathing tickled" can be read as two verbs - why not use the certain noun "breath"?
Omit "followed by" because there seems no connection and her face

It makes "tickling my chest" into an ... apostolic clause (???).

Ha. Ha.
For those who may be interested, the term is 'appositive', which I assume it's derived from the same root word as 'position', rather than 'positive'. I think of it's meaning as 'in the adjacent position'.

CW, are you having difficulty reconciling my posts concerning the sample sentences from you and Switch that we are currently discussing? I'm not entirely certain about them myself, but I'll attempt to explain what I see as their similarities and differences.

Both are certainly 'appositive noun phrases', i.e. phrases positioned after a noun providing extra information about that noun.

Both are 'non-restrictive', i.e. they could be cut from the sentences without the identity of the noun becoming less clear, or in other words, they describe the noun rather than help identify it.

Both phrases are set off with the 'gerund' form of a verb, i.e. the -ing form of a verb NOT preceded by some form of the be-verb, which is required in all standard progressive tenses (aka continuous tenses) of verbs.

Gerunds are like the Thai silk of the grammar world: if you look at them one way they appear to be one colour (verbs), but look at them another way and they like something else (nouns).

With these two sample phrases, tickling his chest and spouting off like a New York cabbie, the gerund is functioning as a verb within the phrases - but the entire phrases are functioning as noun phrases.

The rule of grammar (for formal writing) is that non-restrictive appositives must be enclosed in commas (or similar punctuation marks), but restrictive appositives should not.

But … I hate the tickling-phrase with a comma preceding it almost as much as I hate the spouting-phrase without commas at both ends??? I don't recall ever seeing anything in any guide which suggests they may be treated differently, i.e. both must be enclosed in punctuation marks to show they are non-essential detours from the main body of the sentence.

I'm confident everything I've said above is correct … but what follows is pure speculation.

I see the differences between the two phrases as consequences of their different positions within the sentences. [Note. I think 'sentences' could be replaced 'clauses', and the same conclusions would follow within clauses of a 'complex sentence', i.e. a sentence with multiple clauses joined by conjunctions and/or (non-)serial commas.]

The tickling-phrase appears at the end of the sentence (clause?). There seems to be no need to alert readers that you're about to take them on a detour away from the main body of the sentence: readers don't need to remember anything to continue parsing the main body of the sentence after the detour is over. There is no reason to interrupt the flow of the sentence with a comma – for that clause in that position.

In contrast, the spouting-phrase appears near the start of the sentence – and it is separating the subject of the sentence from its verb! In that position it does seem essential to make readers aware when a detour from the main body of the sentence is starting and ending, so will know what's going on when they need to pick up where they left off.

I'm pretty sure that not every detour following the subject of a sentence needs to signposted with commas – just because it happens to be non-restrictive – but I think this detour, in this position, NEEDS THEM!

The reason I think this detour needs signposts while others may not is that it misdirects readers' expectations. When a sentence begins with a noun or pronoun, a subject, readers expect its verb to come next, or at least without any undue delay. If there's a comma after the subject readers are warned there will be a detour before the appearance of the verb. If there's some other part of speech after the subject (and I am speculating here) readers are warned there will be extra information about the subject before the appearance of the verb. The major problem with this phrase is 'spouting' looks like a verb, and readers will attempt to interpret it as verb, but it's actually functioning as noun.

Seriously, my brain rebelled when I read "You spouting off …" for the first time. It screamed, "That does not compute! The only way this can make sense if with some form of the be-verb, either are, were or will be, between the words 'You' and 'spouting'. I think a comma after 'You' is needed to prevent readers mistakenly attempting to interpret 'spouting' as the verb in the main body of the sentence (and once the first comma is used a second one at the end of the phrase becomes mandatory).

I honestly don't understand all of what you said, but it's this paragraph (especially the last sentence) the made me leave out the comma.

I'm honestly not certain I understand it either. It is a tricky one.

Note, if you were going to use that sentence in a college paper I'd tell you that a comma was mandatory. I'd then suggest that what comes after the comma would sound more natural if it was changed to 'which tickled his chest'.

This has been an interesting exercise for me about when authors should disregard grammar rules which are mandatory for formal writers. The two examples are almost identical, but in one I found a compelling reason why commas were needed, while in the other there seems to be no reason to bother readers by using one.

I would like to take the credit, but it was sejintenej who suggested 'whisper' when I said that 'noise' described annoying sounds.

However, adding "which" seems like the simplest fix, as it utilizes fewer extraneous words.

Yes, that works. It is close to AmigaClone's suggestion though I would omit his comma

Instead of researching the actual name, I decided to have some fun and tease you about the name.

And your joke amused me. :-)
My research and post was intended more for the benefit of others. Gerunds are a particularly difficult part of grammar and the two examples, seemingly so similar but with one crucial difference, seemed like an opportunity to explain how they function.
As for terms like 'appositive', 'restrictive', and 'gerunds' being not descriptive of what they are, I agree, but I'm going to keep on using the "correct terminology" in such explanations. I think that's less likely to cause confusion to those who are interesting in learning about such fine details of grammar.

BTW, if you have changed 'You' to 'Your' then your sentence is correct without a comma. What you then have is like a New York cabbie as a restrictive appositive noun phrase, Your spouting off is a noun phrase and the subject of the sentence, and could cost is the verb of the sentence.

The like-appositive is restrictive because the meaning of 'spouting off' becomes less precise if it was cut from the sentence, so it should not be enclosed in commas.

The subject consists of a determiner Your and the gerund spouting off functioning as a noun. [Note how in that sentence I did not enclose the 'Your' and 'spouting off' in commas because they are restrictive appositives too.]