Forum: Author Hangout

#9 the Run-On Sentence shows that you should add a comma between two main clauses (independent sentences) to avoid a Run-On sentence.

No. It said you should add a comma with a conjunction, such as,

…, but…

If you don't have the conjunction, you have a comma splice which requires either a semicolon or a period.

Rep

You're correct. I focused on the explanation saying you had to add punctuation and I overlooked that the example also added a 'but' .

Minor edit

Also, number 10 he's totally writing of some elements of the Oxford Comma

I didn't see the Oxford comma in any of his examples.

I didn't see the Oxford comma in any of his examples.

In some schools of grammar they teach the sue of the Oxford comma for lists, including lists of options, so the example he has as wrong of:

He wants to get a degree in engineering, or medicine.

would be correct to some grammar people because it's a list, even when only two items are there. This is one of those situations where different grammar schools conflict on the usage.

He wants to get a degree in engineering, or medicine.

That's not an Oxford comma. That's an incorrect comma. An Oxford comma would be:

He wants to get a degree in engineering, medicine, or mathematics.

just don't think it's carved in stone by God.

typo edit.

That should read: "just don't think it's carved in stone by Dog."

I'm happy to read that was in the past. However, I wonder what bad grammar reveals today.

In the past, it wouldn't be published without extensive editor reviews. Nowadays, anyone and their grandmother can publish a book, so non-professionalism runs rampant. But again, this isn't so much non-professionalism as it is simple ignorance of what is the correct usage in each case. As others have pointed out, you can't correct what you don't realize is incorrect. Conclusion: don't rely on individual author's reading an isolated article to fix all of their problems, use editors!

Poor grammar revealed laziness and a lack of respect for the reader.
I'm happy to read that was in the past. However, I wonder what bad grammar reveals today.

He's not talking about the past. His next comment has to do with self-publishing.

I agree with him 100%.

You severely misquoted the author,

I didn't misquote him. I skipped where he was taught what he believes in even if it's not fun. This was how he ended the article:

Whenever you're in doubt about a rule, take a brief moment to look it up. You'll save yourself some embarrassment, and you'll show your readers that you respect language and revere the art of writing well.

I didn't misquote him. I skipped where he was taught what he believes in even if it's not fun. This was how he ended the article:

Whenever you're in doubt about a rule, take a brief moment to look it up. You'll save yourself some embarrassment, and you'll show your readers that you respect language and revere the art of writing well.

I doubt I'll retain ANY of this discussion to recall what 'infinitives' are the next time I encounter a split anything! These are not common sense descriptions of common writing problems, but more a list of what language specialists get pissed seeing in novels.

So how about you give us an explanation and some examples instead?

I went to Grammar Girl. Reading about it gave me a headache and reminded me why I never understood grammar my whole life.

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/dangling-participles

So to sum up, a dangling participle modifies the wrong noun. Usually you've left the subject implied and are taking for granted that your reader will know what you mean, which is generally not a good writing strategy. You fix a dangling modifier by putting the proper subject in the sentence, usually right after the participle or participial phrase

Hiking the trail, the birds chirped loudly.

The birds are the only subject in the sentence, and they directly follow the participial phrase. The participial phrase has to grab on to something, so it grabs the only subject—the birds. So what that sentence says is that the birds were hiking the trail, and that's probably not what I mean. There was probably somebody hiking the trail and hearing the birds chirping loudly.

We can fix it by adding the proper subject right after the participial phrase:

Hiking the trail, Squiggly and Aardvark heard birds chirping loudly.

"To hike" is a verb. Adding "ing" to it (hiking) turns it into a present participle. "Hiking the trail" is a participle phrase.

Missing the point entirely, that explanation didn't give me a headache.

Is that a dangling participle?

"Missing the point" is the participle phrase.
"Explanation" is the subject (or is it?)

Smartarse ;)

The really sneaky danglers are the ones that don't occur at the head of the sentence.

AJ

There's nothing wrong with splitting infinitives

He said that in the article. He said there are no grammar rules saying you can't and that if it makes the sentence clearer, do it.

I didn't actually read the article.

This is what he said:

15. Split Infinitives
An infinitive is the word "to" with a verb. A split infinitive separates the word "to" and the verb with another word (often an adverb). There are no grammar rules that prohibit split infinitives, but many experts disapprove of them. If the sentence sounds awkward by correcting the split, our rule of thumb is to go with what makes the most sense in the context of your writing and for the ease of reading. (For example, "To boldly go where no man has gone before" would sound awkward and less powerful as, "To go boldly where no man has gone before.")

Example 1:

Incorrect: She tried to quickly finish the book before she had to leave.

Correct: She tried to finish the book quickly before she had to leave.

Example 2:

Incorrect: He wanted to gradually improve his strength by increasing the weight.

Correct: He wanted to improve his strength gradually by increasing the weight.

I do not even see what some consider an error to be 'splitting an infinitive';

The writer of the article agrees with you. He used the "To boldly go where…" as an example.

"sounds awkward". That's a pretty subjective test.

As a non-grammartarian, that's what I do (subjective). It has to sound right to my ear. There are times I'll write "than me" when "than I" is grammatically correct.

So for an academic paper, follow the grammar rules strictly (although there is none for split infinitives). But for creative writing, be creative (when it works, not just to break a rule).

So for an academic paper, follow the grammar rules strictly (although there is none for split infinitives). But for creative writing, be creative (when it works, not just to break a rule).

The professor for my first English class in college had a story about teaching English in an inner city somewhere (he said where but I don't recall). Some of the students had regularlized the verb 'to be' (speaking of infinitives) - I be, you be, we be, they all be. Of course it was jarring to his ear but once he got beyond that he found it refreshing. He wanted us all to be willing to stretch our concept of the language, but to always understand *how* we were stretching it. For those students he explained to them what they were doing and that it would be a problem is some contexts but to stick with it when it wouldn't interfere with communication.

I would not place an adverb so it splits an infinitive unless I thought doing so was necessary for the meaning I wanted.

Whereas I'd do it simply because it sounded better (ditto another Latin holdover - ending a sentence with a preposition). Certainly the 'rules' have tempered what sounds right for me but I always strive to remember that the rules are there to serve communication, the aren't the masters.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the only difference I can see between 'to boldly go where no one has gone before' and 'to go boldly where no one has gone before' is a matter of emphasis, not meaning. Both involve going and both involve boldness.

AJ

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the only difference I can see between 'to boldly go where no one has gone before' and 'to go boldly where no one has gone before' is a matter of emphasis, not meaning. Both involve going and both involve boldness.

As was previously mentioned, "to boldly go" implies you'd always go boldly (i.e. you basically can't go non-boldly), whereas "to go boldly" implies that while you might be doing it boldly this time, you might not the next trip.

It's a subtle difference, but it makes a difference.

No, I don't buy it.

I take both to mean that the mission is to be bold when going to a new destination, but neither makes an assertion as to the boldness required when going to an old location.

AJ

So once you reach 70 years of age, or maybe some other number, you have to oldly go, while if you are young you have a choice of going oldly or not. Makeup or false ID might be required to go oldly. On a lightly different punside, I have been viewing a commercial for University of Colorado at Boulder suggesting students go Boulder.

To clarify, the assumption that 'to boldly go' meant to always to go boldly is based, not explicitly on the wording alone, but on the fact it was a tag line for a TV franchise. In essence, the TV Franchise was advertising that the series would always feature fearless crews going boldly on a series of continuing 1-hour quests. If a single character has used the line, everyone would just assume the odd usage was a alien unfamiliar with basic English grammar.

I don't know how to expand on my explanations so far without descending into something that would sound condescending, e.g. look up the definition of phrasal verb.

I did. "Boldly go" doesn't seem to be a phrasal verb. "Boldly" simply modifies the "to go" verb. How will they go? Boldly. It's not an idiomatic phrase.

But people don't take the possible creation of a new phrasal verb into consideration when deciding where to place an adverb because that's a theory you have come up with.

I haven't seen convincing evidence that changing the position of the adverb conveys a different meaning.

AJ

Yeah, pretty much.

And I normally think that if I'm to go boldly, that means I'm enjoying myself while taking a dump. Which is also about as entertaining as reading some of this discussion, all things considered.

And there's nothing wrong with splitting infinitives in English. It's mildly unusual but widely accepted usage, does not make a sentence syntactically invalid, and can sometimes change or clarify meaning, or just make a sentence sound better.

It's interesting to note that every time an adverb is placed before the verb, the infinitive form would be a split infinitive.

'Creative Writing courses routinely teach ...' - to routinely teach.

'What do you really think?' - to really think.

I suspect split infinitives catch our eye not because they're split but because we rarely use (- to rarely use) the infinitive form in a situation where it's accompanied by an adverb.

AJ

but because we rarely use

Split infinitives would not be as big of a problem as they seem to be if they were rarely used.

It is needed for the 'boldly go' example. It is the only way to convey that the action of going must always be done boldly. It is not needed for the 'to quickly finish (reading the book)' example. For that the meaning of 'to finish reading the book quickly' is the same, and I would then consider creating the new verb 'to quickly finish' to be poor writing.

How about "to boldly Pedo Bear the story"? Because, of course, if you're going to risk incurring people's wrath, you wanna make them REALLY pissed off at you, rather than just mildly offended.

I do not even see what some consider an error to be 'splitting an infinitive'; I think of it as creating a new phrasal verb consisting of an adverb and an existing verb root.

I don't think it was ever a 'rule', but it's like passive phrases, in that including split infinitives tends to weaken most sentences rather than making them stronger, so you should only use it when it makes a significant difference in how the sentence is read. Your later point echos this impression, as that's exactly the situation you ran into with it.

*France for example has a government agency designated by law to control the French language (grammar, the addition of new words).

And it's worked wonderfully for them. Their language has remained frozen in time, and the last successful novelist I'm aware of was Jean-Paul Sartre. That government agency's only agenda is to NEVER allow any new words into the language, which seems pointedly stupid when we're inventing things never encountered before at a record pace.

In America, there is no Governmental language body. Instead, it's a vote by consensus, and the publishing industry, both the traditional publishers and the newer independents, have all agreed that we need to understand and use standard usage patterns. However, for fiction uses, there's more flexibility. But still, the general advice is: you have to understand the standards before you can flout them, so that you at least understand what you're risking.

Although Star Trek got away with this one single usage of "to boldly go", you'll notice that it generated such blowback, that no one else has ever attempted to duplicate the process anywhere else. I'd say that's a pretty good example of a process that's working correctly. They allow the one exemption, while reminding everyone why such usages are such a terrible idea in general.

And as an example of delicious irony, the French government are pressing to have English removed as an official language of the European Union because of Brexit. At the same time, their academics are moving towards hosting conferences and publishing papers in English.

AJ

Although Star Trek got away with this one single usage of "to boldly go", you'll notice that it generated such blowback, that no one else has ever attempted to duplicate the process anywhere else.

On the contrary, Creative Writing courses nowadays routinely teach that the rule about not splitting infinitives is archaic and can be ignored.

Here's Grammar Girl's take: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/split-infinitives

Note that split infinitives were in widespread use even at the time it was first recommended they not be on the basis that nobody used them.

AJ

*France for example has a government agency designated by law to control the French language (grammar, the addition of new words).

That is very interesting. I guess France believes they own the French language so their former colonies, where French is spoken, needs to follow what France says is right.

Now if England did the same, can you imagine America agreeing? That's rhetorical.

Who owns Latin? The Catholic church? Italy? Rome (which is the pope)?

The office of the Pope of the Catholic Church has existed longer than the English language.

You may want to re-think this statement. Yes, the Pontifex Maximushas been around since early Roman days, but that was the title of the head priest in a bunch of pagan religions. Then, many centuries later, the title was handed over to the head of the Holy Catholic Church when it became the official religion of Rome, and somewhere in there it picked up the slang term of Pope. However, the title was transferred to the head of the Roman Catholic Church sometime during the time of the Protestant Movement when the Holy Catholic Church ceased to be a unified organisation. Also in there is the period when each bishop ran only their area and the title of Pontiff of Rome applied to the bishop responsible only for Rome and it's immediate area. Later power struggles expanded it to make the Bishop of Rome the head of the whole Holy Catholic Church.

By the time the Pope was in charge of the Holy Catholic Church early forms of English were around. Since then both have changed a lot. Added to that the much older ancient Greeks and Romans had rules on grammar of various sorts.

We also have to remember that languages evolve. So when did the English language begin? Did it begin before Christ and evolve in steps until it was significantly different from its origin.

For the likes of Awnlee - can he/you understand spoken Glaswegian, Newcastle, Cockney?

One of my gfs was from the north of Scotland. I could understand her well enough until she talked to her parents on the phone, then it was one word in ten if I was lucky!

I'm okay with Cockney, but completely flummoxed by Geordie.

AJ

Those many writers and editors that see it as a useful and trustworthy common source?

That's true. It's a very good source for uniformity in certain types of communication, but an absolute waste of time in other types of communication. That's why the AAP have a different manual with a lot differences, it's why the telegram operators didn't use it, and it's why the law makers don't use it. The CMoS is great for academic works but much of it doesn't suit fiction writing. That's why I say it should never be used as a absolute rule of law for fiction, yes, you can use it as a guideline but think about what you want to write and ignore it when it gets in the way.

I'm lucky, as an Australian I never got CMoS shoved down my throat via the education system the way it's pushed in so many of the US colleges and high schools.

I never got CMoS shoved down my throat via the education system

Actually, it's the MLA Style Manual that's used in schools and academic papers.

Actually, it's the MLA Style Manual that's used in schools and academic papers.

And yet so many of the college sites have the CMoS or refer to the CMoS on the How to write assignments pages.

I must have attended college back in the dark ages. My professors never mentioned a style manual/guide. They just told us how the wanted the paper to look, and they each had their own unique definition.

My professors never mentioned a style manual/guide. They just told us how the wanted the paper to look, and they each had their own unique definition.

Could be. Most of the college websites (which is what I've been checking over the last 2 decades) have a page about what style to use for assignments and other papers within the college and all of the ones I've seen either state to use the CMoS or quote from it. Some do allow for the profs to set local rules on spacing and font sizes. Can't speak for further back than that, except for some sites stating they've been using the CMoS for many decades.

My classes were in the early 80's.

My classes were in the early 80's.

I agree with REP. I graduated from college in 1980, and although I was aware of CMoS, I never saw it specifically referred to as a requirement for writing papers. Back then, it was a requirement for the professors when the tried to publish research papers. Thus it was consider of limited application.

then getting hauled over the coals because of some previously undeclared "rule"

It is common for teachers to assume that you were taught those rules and already know them and how to apply them. 60 years later and I still don't understand all the rules. :(

EAFL

Acronyms without definition are meaningless. I usually recognize the commonly used acronyms. I had to look that one up and I doubt if you mean:

EAFL = Emirates American Football League

Probably 'English as a Foreign Language' - start from the 'E' and consider the context.

AJ

'English as a Foreign Language'

I've seen that in adult teaching texts as EaFL and EFL but more commonly as ESL = English as a Second Language.

typo edit

I've seen that in adult teaching texts as EaFL and EFL but more commonly as ESL = English as a Second Language.

Sorry, but even as an American, "EFL" means "English Football League", something separate and distinct from basic America FOOTBALL!!!!

Sorry, but even as an American, "EFL" means "English Football League",

My understanding is in the UK they call it either Association Football or the Premier League - I've never seen it called the English Football League on any of the UK shows or news I've seen over the years.

It's a relatively new term. The Premier League means the top division, the EFL refers to the next three divisions; the Championship, League 1 and League 2.

AJ

It is common for teachers to assume that you were taught those rules and already know them and how to apply them. 60 years later and I still don't understand all the rules.

Much of my problem with these various 'rules' is that, when I was in grade school, they taught one set of rules, and middle school they introduced 'new' English, which emphasized a completely new set of English rules, where the changed the names of nearly everything. As far as I've been able to figure out, the entire 'New English' focus was completely abandoned in the U.S. some time ago, but no one ever informed those of us who were left out to dry in the public sphere!

I was fine breaking down sentences into their basic components, until I was told everything I'd been previously taught was completely wrong and I had to relearn everything from the ground up.

In retaliation, when I finally reached college, I NEVER took a single English class, but quickly befriended an promising English Lit student who served as my editor throughout college. If not for her, I'd never have survived!

My last English lesson would have been somewhere around 1956 - no mention of styles, rules etc. Apart from nouns, adjectives and verbs no mention of parts of speech.

I'm sorry, but if there were no mentions of 'parts of speech' then you were never TAUGHT English, only told to write papers without a general understanding of English composition.

Now, if you're stipulating that you were never taught the intricacies of split infinitives, none of us were, as it's a special use which as Ross points out, is rarely used and not considered an essential part of a basic English education.

Hint: Don't take these extended discussions too seriously, as they're often the grammar equivalent of 'he said'/'she said'. Since both opinions are equally valid (i.e. they describe different uses of the same types of English grammar), there's absolutely no way to evaluate the different positions objectively.

Sorry, I meant to tag who you were responding to, but by the time I finished typing, I completely forgot. :(

The Chicago Manual of Style is a product of the University of Chicago Press, the publishing arm of the University of Chicago, a public university in the state of Illinois.

The University of Chicago is, in US parlance, a private university, not a public one.

(I try to follow the British style as published by the Reader's Digest which has several pages on "split infinitives". It's final recommendation is that it is OK to split infinitives but a reader might think you know no better and your argument may be given less credit by the reader. Because the reader might also be distracted the RD suggests that it might be better to rephrase your text)

Once again, that's why I consider the split infinitives as a subset of 'passive phrases' which, while technically correct, generally weaken sentences, rather than adding anything of value to them. It's not an unacceptable practice, it's just not an advised practice. Basically all it does is to introduce additional unneeded verbiage to help ensure readers don't grasp your basic message.

'To boldly go' is passive yet 'to go boldly' is active?

'To boldly go' was chosen by the trekkies because it's stronger. I think your logic is flawed.

AJ

'To boldly go' is passive yet 'to go boldly' is active?

No, BOTH are passive, which is why someone felt the need to 'dress it up' to make it seem more important than it really was.

Despite trying to explain where the phrase came from, I'd never use or suggest that anyone use a split infinitive unless it was essential to understand the sentence, and even then, I'd tell them to rephrase the entire thought, because "to go boldly" is just plain stupid, whichever order you put it in.

Passive means that something is done to the subject.

The passive form would be something like 'to be boldly flown across the galaxy'. 'To go' is active.

AJ

I've noticed CW using the term to mean a variety of other things. That irritates me. I think discussions here are fraught enough with danger already without someone confusing matters by using a term with an accepted definition to mean other things.

I'll admit that I tend to lump a bunch of different things together (mainly because I was first make aware of them because of an automated report I run that flags each of those separate elements under the one "Passive Phases" category). But, given my tendency to lump everything together, is there a better phrase for me to use.

Previously we used either "filler" or "filter" words/phrases, but I didn't think those fit either.

I don't mean to confuse (which is WHY I avoid those types of speech), but I've never found any clear and/or accepted classification for all the variants that fit into those categories.

Previously we used either "filler" or "filter" words/phrases,

Filler words are simply words not needed.
Filter words has to do with how close you want your 3rd-limited to be.
Passive is something being done to the subject.

I don't see how those would be grouped into the same category. They don't have anything to do with each other.

If I had to nominate a term it would be 'distancing verbs'.

I like the 'distancing verbs' (or phrases) as that describes what I'm specifically trying to avoid, things that remove the reader from what's happening in the story. I think that term came up in our previous discussions too.

(Not specifically directed at Ross, but as good a person to have a chance of answering as anyone.)

My dictionary lists 'go' as both transitive and intransitive, yet all its examples seem intransitive to me.

Can anyone give me an example or two of 'go' being used transitively?

AJ

Can anyone give me an example or two of 'go' being used transitively?

Let go of the bat.

Let go of the bat.

I'm very dubious.

The dictionaries I've consulted reckon that's a verbal phrase, with 'let' being the verb. Also I'm not convinced that a noun preceded by 'to', 'by', 'with', 'of' etc is a direct object.

AJ

I'm very dubious.

Told you I suck at grammar. How about:

Go away.

Told you I suck at grammar. How about:

Go away.

Or:

Go fuck yourself!

Go away.

Isn't 'away' an adverb?

Still, you might be on the right track. I was thinking of eg 'Turn left then go a mile.'

AJ

I can't explain it but if the sentence continued with (as examples)"down the lane" or "before the road forks and go right" then, because of the suffix, I would not insert the word "for".

Yes, I regret truncating my example - "Turn left and go a mile then immediately after the windmill you'll come to a field where a herd of pink elephants are fucking Donald Trump's arse."

Another suggestion: "If you go a mile in my shoes, you can call be whatever you want because I'll be shoeless and unable to catch up with you."

I also wondered whether "From the top of Dickhead Tor go North" would qualify.

We need an expert grammarian :(

AJ

I'm very dubious.

The dictionaries I've consulted reckon that's a verbal phrase, with 'let' being the verb. Also I'm not convinced that a noun preceded by 'to', 'by', 'with', 'of' etc is a direct object.

In that case:

I could go for a Coke.

I went to the movies. (?)

But you're right. That's about all I can think of. It seems that "go" is a special use (for transitive uses), as "went" or "goes" are used instead in most instances.

I could go for a Coke.

I went to the movies.

I'm afraid I don't agree with either of those - neither 'movies' nor 'Coke' seem to be direct objects.

AJ

dictionary.com lists some transitive senses at meanings 39 to 45.

I agree with a couple of them, but the others are things I wouldn't expect to encounter in British English.

AJ

Can anyone give me an example or two of 'go' being used transitively?

I go poo-poo, Daddy? 'D

I go poo-poo, Daddy? 'D

I poo-poo that suggestion because poo-poo is a verb ;)

AJ

The passive form would be something like 'to be boldly flown across the galaxy'. 'To go' is active.

Sigh! Once again ...

I NEVER insisted that "to go boldly" was either passive or active. Instead, I said it's LIKE passive phrases, IN THAT they should generally be avoided to promote STRONGER (i.e. not active) sentences.

Basically, they'll all ways to muddle the language, and obfuscate rather than clarify what you're saying. So if you're trying to make a point, it's best to avoid those types of phrases. But there is NO WAY that that advice is in anyway a RULE.

the MLA Style Manual that's used in schools

I did a number of book reports in elementary school and several reports in high school. I wrote a number of papers during the short time I spent in college. I had to conform with the teacher's requirements, I don't recall ever having to conform with a style manual. :)

Who approved the Chicago school(as an example)?

It's not an approval. It's an acceptance. You buy into their style.

Long established bodies of learning and well respected publishers hold the torch today,

The former, yes. Not the latter, though.
Grammar rules, that is. Style is another topic.

Every language has rules. In Spanish, it determines when to use "el," "la," "los," and "las."

And they probably all have exceptions. For example in Spanish, when a feminine singular noun begins with a stressed "a" or "ha" sound, the masculine definite article is used instead of the feminine definite article.

Are you implying that CMoS is style only?

No. But the grammar rules should be consistent across all the books. It's the style part, like the Oxford comma, that's different across the books.

Are you implying that CMoS is style only? Even given the name, CMoS itself also promotes its use as a guide for usage and grammar.

Usage and grammar are both elements of style, take for instance the use of serial commas, a hotly contested element of basic punctuation that various style guides adherents argue over endlessly.

if you throw convention to the wind

Perhaps throwing convention to the wind is what resulted in language changing. Initially, change is rejected. Then it becomes common usage.

I think these types of people are called 'trend setter' or perhaps 'evolutionists' once their change is accepted.

Grammar mistake # 16 Posting first 15 on SOL forum:)

Nope. Basic mistake #1 is sticking around any forum topic after the first 15 posts. The first dozen are largely informative, after that, the vast majority are either arcane arguments with little real-world relevance, or inane jokes trying to lighten the angry arguments bouncing back and forth.

To survive here, you've GOT to learn to duck and cover. Ask your question, get your answer, thank whoever helped and then get the hell out before the shit starts to fly—'cause it always does!