Variation on a theme: Sentence Structure in Your Writing, a post that might appeal to some writers and hopefully not provoke any hostility. Hostility factor of 2.
william cline
Xena wrote in message
<8DE3BC0EExenac...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
>Let's try this again...
>
>My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I tend
>to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
>to write long complex sentences. Besides the fact that shorter sentences
>indicate a more urgent pace, my writing instructor spoke about rhythm and
>about interesting the reader by varying sentence structure.
>
>I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
>this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure? Do you think
>that this affects the way your reader perceives your writing? Do you think
>that this is important to writing style? For what other reason besides
>pace should a writer vary sentence structure?
>
>Thank you in advance for your sincere comments to this writing related
>post.
>
>Xena
>
I think it is important to make a story flow well. Otherwise, it can get a
bit monotonous. I don't know a complex sentence from a compound fraction,
so I usually just read whatever I wrote out loud to myself. Most of the
time, I can spot where the rhythm is off and then go back and rearrange it
to make it flow better. I usually don't worry about it until after I've got
the first draft completely finished and everything is down on paper. If a
story that I am reading flows well, I don't usually notice sentence
structure at all. I don't know enough (or care enough) about the technical
details of sentence structure to spend a lot of time on them, so I usually
just go by ear. That's just me, though. :-)
-Bill Cline
Paul Martin
sentences. I don't really give a lot of thought to the rules that were hammered
into my head in grade school, other than the obvious ones like "Never end a
sentence with a preposition." I usually just write and see how it sounds as I
read it over afterward.
Now that you mention it, though, I do tend to follow the pattern that you
describe. How weird that I never noticed.
Paul
--
"A discussion is an exchange of knowledge, as opposed to an argument which is
an exchange of ignorance."
Roy DeGregory
Steve Pritchard wrote in message
<929236770.14155.3...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>Xena wrote in message
<8DE3BC0EExenac...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
>>Let's try this again...
>>
>>My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I
tend
>>to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
>>to write long complex sentences. Besides the fact that shorter sentences
>>indicate a more urgent pace, my writing instructor spoke about rhythm and
>>about interesting the reader by varying sentence structure.
>>
>>I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
>>this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure?
>
>using the words to slow the pace as much as is required or to make sure the
>following sentence has more impact.
>
>Often I don't.
You got it!
But it is imperative that when using sentences of contrasting flow and
impact, the shorter, more intense, or volatile, sentence be used after the
long, drawn out one or the effect will be akin to slapping somebody and then
sneaking up on them, or, in other words, it goes against the normal human
perception of cause and effect, and therefore can be deleterious to the
exposition of the normal flow of events as portrayed in most works of
literature, the exception being certain Monte Python screenplays which would
not be effective even then if it weren't for the enormous comedic talent of
John Cleese, who can walk and talk backwards while whistling Dixie, as,
indeed, as he is sometimes wont to do, asynchronistic screenplays
notwithstanding.
I could type my name here, but that would ruin the effect, in as much as a
one-word ending to this post would detract from its thematic
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bil & Tag
Xena wrote:
>
> My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I
tend
> to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
> to write long complex sentences.
Well, you're from Mississippi. Complex sentence structure is to be
expected (a la Faulkner).
> Besides the fact that shorter sentences
> indicate a more urgent pace, my writing instructor spoke about rhythm and
> about interesting the reader by varying sentence structure.
>
> I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
> this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure? Do you
think
> that this affects the way your reader perceives your writing? Do you
think
> that this is important to writing style? For what other reason besides
> pace should a writer vary sentence structure?
For a first draft I write whatever comes out to get it on paper. For my
second drafts I'll spend many hours reading my stuff out loud so as to
better hear myself how interesting or tedious, languid or urgent my
sentences sound. (My wife will poke her head into my writing room and ask
"Did you call me? Oh, you're doing that reading thing again.") I don't
recall ever making a conscious charting of sentence structure so as to
ensure variation. I have confidence in my ear to pick out what isn't
appropriate.
_____________________________________
"Bil & Tag"
a.k.a. William and Tracey Greene
e-mail: remove (NOSPAM)
Julie Fitzgerald
THE SENTENCE! PACE PACE PACE! and
en..er.....gy....................should be consistant. Or not.
Xena wrote:
>
> Let's try this again...
>
> My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I tend
> to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
> to write long complex sentences. Besides the fact that shorter sentences
> indicate a more urgent pace, my writing instructor spoke about rhythm and
> about interesting the reader by varying sentence structure.
>
> I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
> this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure? Do you think
> that this affects the way your reader perceives your writing? Do you think
> that this is important to writing style? For what other reason besides
> pace should a writer vary sentence structure?
>
> Thank you in advance for your sincere comments to this writing related
> post.
>
> Xena
>
> --
>
> You can read my stuff at my web site:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Bistro/4967
>
> Check out my latest, "Science Versus the Bobbin".
Julie Fitzgerald
>
>
> Thank you in advance for your sincere comments to this writing related
> post.
Sorry about the previous post, I missed that you were looking for
sincere comments. However, I feel that your subject header is overly
conservative and a real bummer, overstating the the obvious, when a
simple writing missive would have been more appropriate. Lighten up,
would ya?
Steve Pritchard
>
>My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I tend
>to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
>to write long complex sentences. Besides the fact that shorter sentences
>indicate a more urgent pace, my writing instructor spoke about rhythm and
>about interesting the reader by varying sentence structure.
>
>I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
>this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure?
Occasionally I will make a concerted effort to try and drag out a sentence,
Roy DeGregory
Xena wrote in message
<8DE3F1ECDxenac...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
>Roy DeGregory <r...@cysource.com> wrote in
><mRE83.1370$Lu2....@typ52b.nn.bcandid.com>:
[...]
>>enormous comedic talent of John Cleese, who can walk and talk backwards
>>while whistling Dixie, [...]
>He can TALK backwards WHILE whistling?
Yes. Yes, he can.
It sounds like a flying saucer.
>I dare you to try it. My siblings and I used to spit cornbread all over
>each other when our parents weren't looking.
>
>Go ahead. I dare you.
Well, okay, but we used to do it WHILE our parents were looking. That's
where we did the walking backwards thing.
>Xena (Ah, the entertainment of youth...)
Ahhhh . . .
Roy
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>Bil & Tag <tag@hiwaay(NOSPAM)net> wrote in
><01beb545$43ce0a60$060f...@tag.HiWAAY.net>:
>
>>Well, you're from Mississippi. Complex sentence structure is to be
>>expected (a la Faulkner).
>
>Yeah, maybe that's it.
>
>>For a first draft I write whatever comes out to get it on paper. For my
>>second drafts I'll spend many hours reading my stuff out loud so as to
>>better hear myself how interesting or tedious, languid or urgent my
>>sentences sound. (My wife will poke her head into my writing room and ask
>>"Did you call me? Oh, you're doing that reading thing again.") I don't
>>recall ever making a conscious charting of sentence structure so as to
>>ensure variation. I have confidence in my ear to pick out what isn't
>>appropriate.
>
>I think now that I'm aware of the fact that I tend to write long, I pay
>more attention to it as I'm writing. These are short works I'm editing,
>and I thought it would be good to evaluate them for sentence structure
>since I KNOW I have a bad habit. I guess it's a different way for me to
>look at editing.
Do you have a bad habit? Maybe those long sentences are a good
basic rhythm for you. Maybe you only need to shorten some of
them now and then.
Maybe you don't need to shorten them.
>
>I haven't got the "rhythm" thing down perfect yet. Sometimes I can do it,
>but when I'm concentrating too much on picking the right words, I often
>neglect the sentence patterns. I think it's a matter of awareness, then
>practice, and eventually second nature for me. (I'm working on practice
>now.)
Remember, there are different rhythms.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>Let's try this again...
>
>My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I tend
>to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
>to write long complex sentences. Besides the fact that shorter sentences
>indicate a more urgent pace, my writing instructor spoke about rhythm and
>about interesting the reader by varying sentence structure.
>
>I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
>this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure? Do you think
>that this affects the way your reader perceives your writing? Do you think
>that this is important to writing style? For what other reason besides
>pace should a writer vary sentence structure?
>
>Thank you in advance for your sincere comments to this writing related
>post.
>
>Xena
>
Oh, definitely if you get this feeling of a monotonous drone, go
through and break up some of your sentences.
Rhythm means a lot to me: the micro rhythm of the word after word,
the mezzo rhythm of the sentence and the paragraph, the macro
rhythm of chapter after chapter.
Did I tell you guys how, between computer meltdowns, I spent this
winter and spring baffled by the ending of the novel I just
finished? I knew all the events that would happen, but I couldn't
figure out where to stop. A long chain of events prompted me to
think about turning my dinky short chapeters into long ones, which
meant moving some material around and changing a handful of words.
Right away though, I saw that I had always known where to end it,
but formerly I couldn't end it where it ought o end because of the
rhythm.
My chapters start on an answer and end on a question, and I like
to have a walking rhythm to events. Somehow, the short chapters
weren't allowing the last ones to swing properly (I do like the
novel to speed up a little towards the end, but proportionately),
and the question was falling outside the beats of the last
chapter. When I consolidated and added material, it just rocked
better.
The same thing happens with paragraphs, sentences, even words and
syllables, sometimes.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Julie Fitzgerald
>> snip>>
> My chapters start on an answer and end on a question,
This is perfect for me! In my forthcoming best seller, I haven't
designated any chapter breaks at all, preferring instead to see how it
turned out pace-wise. I have four character points of view, and thought
I'd just sort of divide it up naturally, but now I have a better idea.
Roy DeGregory
Xena wrote
>But did you ever do the "disappearing butter bean trick"? My brother got
>me with that one when I was about five. You put mashed potatos on the palm
>of your hand, swipe your flattened hand over the bean, and "Voila!" The
>bean disappears.
>
>I tried it.
>
>Only I didn't know you rub the mashed potatos on your hand to make it
>stick. I put the butter bean down on my Mom's fairly new French Provencal
>table and SMACKED! that puppy as hard as I could. I left somewhat of a
>fossilized-looking imprint of a butterbean engrained into the table.
>
>I got the whoopin' of my life while my brother was hiding under the table
>laughing and discreetly wiping mashed potatos off his hands.
>
>Never trust your siblings.
This was very well written! Nice pace, nice mix of sentence length--you did
it!
Now, when you master it, and can do it at will, please don't abandon your
inherent Mississippi style of language. That would be a shame.
Roy
Lucy Kemnitzer
<fit...@Home.com> wrote:
>Lucy Kemnitzer wrote:
>>> snip>>
>> My chapters start on an answer and end on a question,
>
>This is perfect for me! In my forthcoming best seller, I haven't
>designated any chapter breaks at all, preferring instead to see how it
>turned out pace-wise. I have four character points of view, and thought
>I'd just sort of divide it up naturally, but now I have a better idea.
>
But please consider having your chapter breaks, or section breaks,
or part or book breaks or something, follow point of view shifts:
those can be an extra obstacle to following a story, especially
when there's four of them.
(I'm not saying "please consider" to be cute: you may, after all,
find a better way to do things)
Lucy Kemnitzer
Steve Pritchard
Lucy Kemnitzer wrote in message <376357ac...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>My chapters start on an answer and end on a question, and I like
>to have a walking rhythm to events.
Ray Feist always seems to start his chapters with a three or four word
sentence.
William Penrose
>
> Let's try this again...
>
> My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I tend
> to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
> to write long complex sentences.
You should become a German author.
> I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
> this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure?
Yes, I do it deliberately, and during revision.
>..Do you think
> that this affects the way your reader perceives your writing?
Yes. It keeps them from going to sleep (as quickly).
Bill
--
************************************************************
Information on gas sensors and related instruments:
Check us out at http://www.customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618,
email wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D and product development to this
and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
William Penrose
>
> Xena wrote:
> >
> > My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I
> tend
> > to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
>
> > to write long complex sentences.
>
> expected
Is this like, where you have a noun and verb in the same sentence?
John Jordan
>Occasionally I will make a concerted effort to try and drag out a sentence ...
Pardon me for picking on someone, but the above is one of my major
gripes. The phrase should be "try *to*," not "try *and*."
Yeah, yeah, I know. Everyone says it. (Well, I don't, and I suppose
there are others who don't, but probably the majority of Americans
do.) Nevertheless, I would assume a writer would avoid the usage,
simply because some readers will think poorly of the writer who
doesn't seem to realize it is still officially incorrect.
"Try and" ranks in my peeve list right after "people that." People are
"who's," not "that's."
NOTICE: The e-mail address is deliberately incorrect. Make the ISP
read "spiritone.com" by adding an "e."
william cline
John Jordan wrote in message <379bf78c....@news.spiritone.com>...
>
>>Occasionally I will make a concerted effort to try and drag out a sentence
...
>
>Pardon me for picking on someone, but the above is one of my major
>gripes. The phrase should be "try *to*," not "try *and*."
>
>Yeah, yeah, I know. Everyone says it. (Well, I don't, and I suppose
>there are others who don't, but probably the majority of Americans
>do.) Nevertheless, I would assume a writer would avoid the usage,
>simply because some readers will think poorly of the writer who
>doesn't seem to realize it is still officially incorrect.
>
>"Try and" ranks in my peeve list right after "people that." People are
>"who's," not "that's."
People that try and correct everyone else's grammar in Usenet posts (which
are more conversational than official) are one of *my* pet peeves.
-BC
Prince Richard Kaminski
william cline wrote:
I agree. It is truly a most annoying habit.
By the way, "people *who* try *to* correct everyone else's grammar" is far more
acceptable to those with discerning tastes.
Julie Fitzgerald
>
> Language rules evolve out of what people say. People say stuff,
> and then we invent the rules afterwards. If the people say "try
> and," then "try and" is the utterance, and if you want to explain
> the language, you have to make a rule thqat describes it.
Have you ever read some of the philosophy about the origins of language?
It's fascinating stuff, if you can follow it. I think it's Wittenstein
(sp?) who goes into a big thing about what is "real" and cause and
effect and all kinds of stuff that you have to wonder, why are they
doing this? It is interesting though.
>
> No amount of pedantic screwing around with the language digging
> for mistakes is going to do you any good in developing expressive,
> and yes, correct language.
>
> Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>Julie Fitzgerald <fit...@Home.com> wrote in <37636EB8...@Home.com>:
>
>>Lucy Kemnitzer wrote:
>>>> snip>>
>>> My chapters start on an answer and end on a question,
>>
>>This is perfect for me! In my forthcoming best seller, I haven't
>>designated any chapter breaks at all, preferring instead to see how it
>>turned out pace-wise. I have four character points of view, and thought
>>I'd just sort of divide it up naturally, but now I have a better idea.
>>
>>
>>and I like
>>> to have a walking rhythm to events. Somehow, the short chapters
>>> weren't allowing the last ones to swing properly (I do like the
>>> novel to speed up a little towards the end, but proportionately),
>>> and the question was falling outside the beats of the last
>>> chapter. When I consolidated and added material, it just rocked
>>> better.
>>>
>>> The same thing happens with paragraphs, sentences, even words and
>>> syllables, sometimes.
>>>
>>> Lucy Kemnitzer
>>
>
>Just curious. Did you outline the novel first? Maybe at least make a list
>of events or scenes? I was just wondering because sometimes this is how I
>start to work out the plot and by looking at the events, I get a feeling
>right away of how I'm going to break up the chapters. At one point, I did
>wonder if I was doing it wrong because I hadn't taken a class or spoken
>with any other writers before. I felt I was doing it the only way I knew
>how.
>
I now have it on good authority, having heard it from a bunch of
writers I admire, that Every Writer Does It Differently. I think
it's useful to get ideas from each other, especially so we have
alternatives to try when we come up against something that isn't
working, but we do ourselves a disfavor if we take other writers'
methods as laws.
That being said, here's what I (at the beginning of my writing
career, still) do:
I know the story I'm going to write. Usually I have already
written it as an abortive start, a short story, or a novella --
I'm learning to consider these things as "treatments," but I
naturally do them, come to a spot I don't understand, and pick up
some other project for a few months or years. I don't know of
anybody else who does every damned thing this way.
I write irregular notes -- more for more complex things, less for
less complex things. For the first really good novel I wrote
(which is still unpublished because while I have become a good
writer I am still a terrible businesswoman and dysfunctionally shy
in these matters) there were sections where the notes I wrote were
as long or longer than the bits that went into the finished novel.
If I do outlining, it's after I've gotten well underway, when the
scope of the thing is getting too big to hold in my head. Then
it's informal outlining. But remember, I have the treatment sort
of thing I wrote already.
I start out working with separate files for what I am considering
to be chapters, and with an idea of how I want the chapters to go,
because it feels right to me. Now that I think about it, I
changed the chapter structure rather radically towards the end of
writing _The Donor_ also. Again, it was about rhythm -- in that
book, there was "and then three months passed" sort of stuff
happening, and I had to make those transitions feel right. It
turned out to make sense to have certain events, pronouncements,
and descriptions happen at the beginnings of chapters and others
happen at the middles, and others at the ends.
It has questions at the ends and answers at the beginnings, too,
so I guess that's what I do.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
<-Billy-B...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>John Jordan wrote in message <379bf78c....@news.spiritone.com>...
>>
>>>Occasionally I will make a concerted effort to try and drag out a sentence
>...
>>
>>Pardon me for picking on someone, but the above is one of my major
>>gripes. The phrase should be "try *to*," not "try *and*."
>>
>>Yeah, yeah, I know. Everyone says it. (Well, I don't, and I suppose
>>there are others who don't, but probably the majority of Americans
>>do.) Nevertheless, I would assume a writer would avoid the usage,
>>simply because some readers will think poorly of the writer who
>>doesn't seem to realize it is still officially incorrect.
>>
>>"Try and" ranks in my peeve list right after "people that." People are
>>"who's," not "that's."
>
>
>People that try and correct everyone else's grammar in Usenet posts (which
>are more conversational than official) are one of *my* pet peeves.
You know what else? People who mistakenly think that every
utterance we make can or ought to be broken down into tiny little
logical bits as if we were talking in Fortan (I chose this
purposefully).
Language rules evolve out of what people say. People say stuff,
and then we invent the rules afterwards. If the people say "try
and," then "try and" is the utterance, and if you want to explain
the language, you have to make a rule thqat describes it.
No amount of pedantic screwing around with the language digging
Ari Nordstrom
wrote:
<snip>
>You know what else? People who mistakenly think that every
>utterance we make can or ought to be broken down into tiny little
>logical bits as if we were talking in Fortan (I chose this
>purposefully).
People should be talking in Perl, obviously.
/Ari
Steve Pritchard
william cline <-Billy-B...@email.msn.com> wrote in message ...
>
>John Jordan wrote in message <379bf78c....@news.spiritone.com>...
>>
>>>Occasionally I will make a concerted effort to try and drag out a sentence
>...
>>
>>Pardon me for picking on someone, but the above is one of my major
>>gripes. The phrase should be "try *to*," not "try *and*."
>>
>>Yeah, yeah, I know. Everyone says it. (Well, I don't, and I suppose
>>there are others who don't, but probably the majority of Americans
>>do.) Nevertheless, I would assume a writer would avoid the usage,
>>simply because some readers will think poorly of the writer who
>>doesn't seem to realize it is still officially incorrect.
>>
>>"Try and" ranks in my peeve list right after "people that." People are
>>"who's," not "that's."
>
>
>People that try and correct everyone else's grammar in Usenet posts (which
>are more conversational than official) are one of *my* pet peeves.
Hey, I'm sure he does spelling too. Shame I didn't include a typo for him to
pick out.
(Actually, it's a surprise I didn't too)
Wolf Lahti
and beautiful sentences".
Yep, that's me, complex and beautiful. :)
(I, of course, intersperse the occasional terse and ugly
sentence, for variety's sake.)
=======================================================
"I hate quotations!" Wolf Lahti
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson Allen, Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
wd...@paccar.com
=======================================================
John Jordan
red:
>Hey, I'm sure he does spelling too. Shame I didn't include a typo for him to
>pick out.
Nah. I never pick on typo's. I don't even pick on misspellings.
Spelling is a brain function thing and some just don't have it and
never will. 'Sides, that's why we made spell checkers. And for that
matter, I have long been an advocate of severe spelling reform for
English anyway.
I do have to agree to a point with Lucy, who said --
>Language rules evolve out of what people say. People say stuff,
>and then we invent the rules afterwards. If the people say "try
>and," then "try and" is the utterance, and if you want to explain
>the language, you have to make a rule that describes it.
But there is still a need for balance. On the one hand, we don't want
to stifle creative change. A language is an active, living thing. It
must be free to change over time, or it will die. On the other hand,
we must maintain a certain degree of uniformity, or the language
devolves into numerous dialects, which ultimately become mutually
incomprehensible. Anyone who thinks that is not possible with English
has never seen a Scot trying to understand Ebonics. I note the BBC
occasionally uses subtitles on certain American productions to assist
their viewership in following the language.
If my character is a semi-literate American, who thinks a verb is some
special kind of herb, then yeah, the character should say "try and,"
because that is what the character's normal speech would be. But if
the character is educated, then I would expect the language to be more
standard. And anything the writer says (non-dialog) should usually be
standard usage as well.
Having said that, there are also obviously exceptions to every rule. A
writer can adopt non-standard usage as an element of the writer's
style, at least to a point. However, even if a writer does so, it
fails if the reader comes to the conclusion that the writer's
nonstandard usage is from ignorance, rather than by choice. You have
to demonstrate that you know what the rules are before you can get
away with deviating from them.
Shanan Capes
> I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
> this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure? Do you think
> that this affects the way your reader perceives your writing? Do you think
> that this is important to writing style? For what other reason besides
> pace should a writer vary sentence structure?
>
Not when I'm first writing. If I think about techie stuff when I first
sit down with an idea, I lock up mentally and end up avoiding the
writing altogether. Instead, I just write, and then I find better
wording later on.
As far as short vs. long sentences, I prefer longer sentences. I read a
novel once that had such short, choppy sentences that it detracted from
the urgency. I know the author, and I know she was going for urgency,
but it was so distracting that I couldn't finish reading it. I felt
like she couldn't keep a thought long enough to make it interesting. So
I guess my answer to your question is yes, I do think that sentence
structure affects the reader's perception.
I was at a writer's workshop a couple years ago where I had the
opportunity to sit in on a lecture by Dr. Herbert Martin (Poet). The
main idea he was trying to get across can be summed up in a quote from
the lecture: "Don't try so hard to be clever that the result cries out
'Look at me! I'm being clever!'" I think that when writers try to write
"with urgency" or when they try to "vary sentence structure", it shows.
The "trying" shows through and the writing feels forced. I prefer to
just let the writing happen, and then I clean up awkward stuff
afterwards.
Don't know if that makes any sense. It does to me, but then again, I'm
strange that way :-)
Later!
Shanan :-)
Wendy Chatley Green
:"Steve Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> dijo a todos por la
:red:
:
:>Hey, I'm sure he does spelling too. Shame I didn't include a typo for him to
:>pick out.
:
:Nah. I never pick on typo's.
On which of typo's possessions do you never pick?
--
Wendy (yes, I'm being ornery)
Chatley Green -- wcg...@cris.com
Andy Katz
Actually, I rather enjoy these threads. The key, I believe, is to
avoid using posts from the ng, therby eliminating accusations of
grammar flames and nitpicking.
I just happened to find myself weeding "infinitive and" constructions
in most instances. And word placement is also a matter of concern,
particularly as I can't plot, create character, write dialogue or
decribe action worth a damn.
But those words they sure are pretty . . .
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Steve Pritchard
John Jordan wrote in message <37a35045....@news.spiritone.com>...
>Having said that, there are also obviously exceptions to every rule. A
>writer can adopt non-standard usage as an element of the writer's
>style, at least to a point. However, even if a writer does so, it
>fails if the reader comes to the conclusion that the writer's
>nonstandard usage is from ignorance, rather than by choice. You have
>to demonstrate that you know what the rules are before you can get
>away with deviating from them.
Agreed, but a conversational email piece, crafted in ten seconds, is not
something I really check all that thoroughly. I'm not even thinking of the
rules, let alone thinking of deviating from them
Steve Pritchard
Wendy Chatley Green wrote in message
<37697801....@news.concentric.net>...
Ohh, Pedantic Woman leaps into battle, cape flapping in the slight breeze and
her gold lame costume tight around the bosom. Before her stands Grammar Man,
the florid scarlet "G" standing proud upon his chest. with a proud, jutting
jaw he squares up to his new opponent.
The misc.writing regulars take a sweepstake on how long the fight will last.
Those who draw times of over three minutes walk off in disgust - they know
Pedantic Woman for the power that she is.
John Jordan
>:Nah. I never pick on typo's.
>
> On which of typo's possessions do you never pick?
Color me old. It used to be the norm that abbreviations, acronyms and
a few other special terms always took the aprostophe to form a plural.
The modern usage is to leave out the apostrophe. I don't. My method is
still accepted as alternate usage. I believe outside the U.S., the
apostrophe is still preferred.
NOTICE: The e-mail address is deliberately incorrect. Make the ISP
read "spiretech.com" by adding an "h."
John V Ashby
>wcg...@cris.com (Wendy Chatley Green) dijo a todos por la red:
>
>>:Nah. I never pick on typo's.
>>
>> On which of typo's possessions do you never pick?
>
>Color me old. It used to be the norm that abbreviations, acronyms and
>a few other special terms always took the aprostophe to form a plural.
>The modern usage is to leave out the apostrophe. I don't. My method is
>still accepted as alternate usage. I believe outside the U.S., the
>apostrophe is still preferred.
[The apostrophe] should not be used with contractions (e.g. M.P.s) or merely
because what is put into the plural is not a noun.
john (Complete Plain Words p177)
Wendy Chatley Green
:wcg...@cris.com (Wendy Chatley Green) dijo a todos por la red:
:
:>:Nah. I never pick on typo's.
:>
:> On which of typo's possessions do you never pick?
:
:Color me old. It used to be the norm that abbreviations, acronyms and
:a few other special terms always took the aprostophe to form a plural.
:The modern usage is to leave out the apostrophe. I don't. My method is
:still accepted as alternate usage. I believe outside the U.S., the
:apostrophe is still preferred.
Just in case anyone is interested:
H. W. Fowler, _A Dictionary of Modern English Usage_, 2nd ed., 1965,
under "Possessive Puzzles, #7:"
[The apostrophe] may occasionally be used before a plural 's' as a
device for avoiding confusion, but this should not be extended beyond
what is necessary for that purpose. We may necessarily write "dot
your i's and cross your t's", but there is no need for an apostrophe
in 'but me no buts" or 'one million whys", or for the one we sometimes
see in such plurals as M.Ps., A.D.C.s, N.C.O.s, the 1920s, etc. To
insert an apostrophe in the plural of an ordinary noun is a fatuous
vulgarism which, according to The Times, is infecting display writing.
TEA'S outside the wayside cottage is bad enough, but I have seen
SHIRT'S and VEST'S in a large Oxford St. shop. . . .
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Tetractys
> ... It used to be the norm that abbreviations, acronyms and
> a few other special terms always took the apostrophe to form
> a plural....
This is not true. If you were taught this, you were taught in
error, or perhaps you misunderstood. The apostrophe can
be used for clarity, and for that reason alone, when forming
plurals. Sign painters use apostrophes and quote marks
indiscrimately, and perhaps there is a sign-painters' school
somewhere that shut down, dislodging former graphic artists
into the elementary schools to teach punctuation, but I am
aware of no text or authority which states that abbreviations
and acronyms "always" take an apostrophe to form a plural.
--
Pluractys
John Jordan
>Steve Pritchard <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote in
><929408281.12917.5...@news.demon.co.uk>:
>
>>Agreed, but a conversational email piece, crafted in ten seconds, is not
>>something I really check all that thoroughly. I'm not even thinking of the
>>rules, let alone thinking of deviating from them
>I agree. In UseNet, I feel it's not required that one speak or write
>perfect English. Part of the charm is being able to get away with not
>speaking perfect English.
>
>I worry about what I write and how I write when I'm writing a story that
>people will see. I will seriously consider constructive criticism
>regarding any errors. (Yes, I even went back and changed something I had
>already posted because someone else pointed it out.)
>
>But in UseNet, I feel like all's fair.
That's fine.
I never discuss usage anyplace besides writing newgroups. It is only
here where people would be concerned about knowing the rules.
And my purpose is strictly didactic, not to sound as though people
shouldn't be allowed to post in whatever way they want. Those who are
concerned about knowing accepted usage will pay attention, and the
rest can just click on past. If I have to click through 100 messages a
day about how cute someone's cat is, others can put up with my
occasional grammar rants. At least I'm talking about writing. :)
But I couldn't write with incorrect usage unless I did so
deliberately. (Not counting the odd typo here and there.) Perhaps it
is because I grew up tri-lingual, so I became more aware of rules of
language than most. I don't know. Whether I am writing on Usenet or
for publication, it just comes out right. I don't mean that I never
use slang or that my style is academic -- only that it is
grammatically correct from the start. It doesn't take me any longer to
say it right. My editing is not to correct usage errors, but to
clarify and fix problems with the story line, character development,
or something else.
But we each have our own way of writing, and I know some think that
this is the job of a copy editor, not the writer. If that attitude
produces works that sell, who am I to argue?
>But in UseNet, I feel like all's fair.
I think I'll pick on this line for my next rant. But I'll do it in a
separate post.
Towse
Tetractys wrote:
>
> John Jordan wrote:
>
> > ... It used to be the norm that abbreviations, acronyms and
> > a few other special terms always took the apostrophe to form
> > a plural....
>
> This is not true. If you were taught this, you were taught in
> error, or perhaps you misunderstood. The apostrophe can
> be used for clarity, and for that reason alone, when forming
> plurals.
Chicago Manual of Style:
6.9 Letters, noun coinages, numbers. So far as it can be done without
confusion, single or multiple letters used as words, hyphenated
coinages used as nouns, and numbers (whether spelled out or in
figures) form the plural by adding s alone:
the three Rs
thank-you-ma'ams
in twos and threes
several YMCAs and AYHs
CODs and IOUs
the early 1920s
6.10 Abbreviations with periods, lowercase letters used as nouns, and
capital letters that would be confusing if s alone were added form the
plural with an apostrophe and an s:
M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s
x's and y's
S's, A's, I's
SOS's
Hm. The "SOS's" example is a confusion, no?
Sal
be...@kerch.com
> People should be talking in Perl, obviously.
People DO write poetry in Perl. Extra points if the poem does
something useful when you run it.
--berry
Tetractys
> M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s
> x's and y's
> S's, A's, I's
> SOS's
>
> Hm. The "SOS's" example is a confusion, no?
How do you mean?
I wouldn't use the apostrophe with the M.A.s and Ph.D.s,
myself, not seeing the need for them.
--
T's
Shanan Capes
>
> People should be talking in Perl, obviously.
>
English.
Scheme. Now there's a language everyone should be using for day-to-day
speech :-)
(car(cons 'Hello '(What In The World)))
Shanan :-)
Tetractys
> >John Jordan wrote:
> >> ... It used to be the norm that abbreviations, acronyms and
> >> a few other special terms always took the apostrophe to form
> >> a plural....
> According to my "The Little, Brown Handbook", which I usually
> go by to settle these matters in my own writing, "Use an apostrophe
> plus -s to form the plurals of letters, numbers, and words named
> as words."
But not abbreviations and acronyms, which was the point under
discussion?
Your example would apply to x's and o's, to 1's and 2's, and to
"his"'s and "hers"'s, but not to FBIs and UCLAs and LS/MFTs.
--
Tetracty's
Towse
> The things I have the hardest time with are "on" and "off". Like,
> "Turn the light on." Or do you say, "Turn on the light"? If you say
> "The light is ON," then you're ending the sentence incorrectly. So
> what do you do? The light IS on. It feels awkward saying, "The light
> is glowing" just to avoid the word "on."
Oddly enough, George Lucas has this exact same problem and one day as
he was slaving over the screenplay for THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, he
realized this problem and concern he'd been suffering with, agonizing
over for lo-so-many years could, if looked at from a different angle,
be not a burden, but a blessing.
Sal /"ON your light saber is, young Luke; away put your weapons before
worn out your AAA battery becomes."/
Towse
My oh-so-muddle-headed confusion dealt with why there seemed to be a
difference in the handling of SOS['s] from YWCA[s]. Both are acronyms,
no? I don't see "SOSs" as being less clear to the reader than "SOS's".
[Look! *standing on my head* *waggling my feet* *sticking out my
tongue* I put the terminal punctuation *outside* the quotation marks
and no one could stop me!]
In fact, that pesky "apostrophe ess" always gives me pause when I see
it used for something other than a possessive or an "is" contraction.
PEACH'S FOR SALE--now, *that* sort of all-too-common nonsense gives me
shivers, not simply "pause."
"Peach is for sale. Which peach? Do you have an apple as well?"
Sal
Allan Izen -- DOH - Food and Drug Branch
: >Occasionally I will make a concerted effort to try and drag out a sentence ...
Since the word 'concerted' means to do something jointly or in unison, you
either have multiple personality disorder or you've made a grammatical
error.
Steve Pritchard
Towse wrote in message <3766B8B6...@null.net>...
>>PEACH'S FOR SALE--now, *that* sort of all-too-common nonsense gives me
>shivers, not simply "pause."
>
>"Peach is for sale. Which peach? Do you have an apple as well?"
Sal, was there a red light on the porch of this house you mention?
Just asking.
Andrew Kelly
(JenXena) wrote:
>The things I have the hardest time with are "on" and "off". Like, "Turn
>the light on." Or do you say, "Turn on the light"? If you say "The light
>is ON," then you're ending the sentence incorrectly. So what do you do?
>The light IS on. It feels awkward saying, "The light is glowing" just to
>avoid the word "on."
Why? Because you don't want to end a sentence with a
preposition?
Aren't the words on and off in this case conditions rather than
prepositions? The light is on. The light is broken. The light
is blue.
Sounds fine to me, but my abilities with this language stuff are
known to be lacking so I could very well be incorrect.
Turn the light on, turn on the light...these both work for me as
well. One variation is placing the emphasis on the change of
condition, the other on the object to which this will occur.
Just one dude's opinion here.
And (please return to your regularly scheduled program) rew
Steve Pritchard
Allan Izen -- DOH - Food and Drug Branch wrote in message
<7k6nj3$o...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
Or the error was mine and the attributions messed up, Alan.
(Doh!)
<g>
Steve Gyldenvand
<8DE69EDF8xenac...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
<snipped just for the hell of it>
> The things I have the hardest time with are "on" and "off". Like, "Turn
> the light on." Or do you say, "Turn on the light"? If you say "The
light
> is ON," then you're ending the sentence incorrectly. So what do you do?
> The light IS on. It feels awkward saying, "The light is glowing" just to
> avoid the word "on."
>
>
> JenXena
In this usage, the words "on" and "off" are adjectives, not prepositions.
In fact, my battered old Webster's New World Dictionary uses the phrase
"the light is on" as an example in its definition.
But beyond that, it is not necessarily a gross grammatical transgression to
end a sentence with a preposition, as long as the resulting sentence reads
easily. On his Guide to Grammar and Style web site (URL below) Jack Lynch
cites a fairly well known story about Winston Churchill, who, after being
reprimanded for ending a sentence with a preposition, replied, "This is the
sort of thing up with which I will not put."
In addition to Lynch's excellent site, I would also recommend Paul Brians'
site, Common Errors in English. Brians has not only compiled a substantial
list errors which is sure to include most, if not all, of your personal pet
peeves, he also has a page dedicated to "Non-Errors". His URL also appears
below.
Both sites are outstanding reference resources. Since visiting them several
weeks ago, I don't no longer make much grammar airs at all.
Steve Gyldenvand
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html#prepend
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html
"When I was a young boy, they called me a liar.
Now that I'm all grown up, they call me a writer."
--Isaac Bashevis Singer
John Jordan
todos por la red:
>John Jordan (j...@spiriton.com) wrote:
>
>>Occasionally I will make a concerted effort to try and drag out a sentence ...
>Since the word 'concerted' means to do something jointly or in unison, you
>either have multiple personality disorder or you've made a grammatical
>error.
Well, I never wrote that line in the first place, it was something I
quoted from someone else, not that it matters. I could be as guilty of
it as the person I quoted, because I thought "concerted" could be used
with that meaning also.
But, having scurried to my dictionary, the sole meaning of "concerted"
seems to be "in unison." This is a Webster's New Universal Unabridged.
Deluxe Second Edition, the largest dictionary I have in the house.
It's a mere 10cm thick, however, so maybe someone else with a larger
dictionary can find the other meaning. If two of us here used it that
way, the additional meaning must be recorded somewhere, even if only
as dialect.
John Jordan
>The things I have the hardest time with are "on" and "off". Like, "Turn
>the light on." Or do you say, "Turn on the light"? If you say "The light
>is ON," then you're ending the sentence incorrectly. So what do you do?
>The light IS on. It feels awkward saying, "The light is glowing" just to
>avoid the word "on."
As weird as I am about usage, that never occurred to me as a
difficulty. I have no problem with "turn the light on," or "the light
is on."
The word "on" is normally a preposition, therefore some still hold to
the pre-Churchillian notion that we should not end a sentence with
one. Never mind the fact that English has always ended sentences with
prepositions, since the very beginnings of the language. Not ending a
sentence with a preposition was something the grammarians of the 17th
and 18th century tried to shove on us, thinking that we should not do
it because the Romance languages didn't do it. Bah.
In any event, in the above usage, the word "on" is no longer a
preposition anyway. It has been pressed into service as a simple
adjective, modifying "light." Therefore, I feel free to stick the on
in the place we do in normal speech.
Anyway, that's my take on it. It's as good a justification as any.
If you don't like my justification, then we can always fall back on
the time-honored "it's an idiomatic expression." No one can ever argue
with that one.
william cline
Steve Pritchard wrote in message
<929522810.18360.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>: >Occasionally I will make a concerted effort to try and drag out a
>sentence ...
>>
>>Since the word 'concerted' means to do something jointly or in unison, you
>>either have multiple personality disorder or you've made a grammatical
>>error.
>
>
>(Doh!)
><g>
>
That reminds me of that purple-haired lady on "Are You Being Served?". She
always says "and I am unanimous on that." Really cracks me up. :-)
Andrew Kelly
>ari....@mbox304.swipnet.se (Ari Nordstrom) writes:
>> People should be talking in Perl, obviously.
>
>People DO write poetry in Perl. Extra points if the poem does
>something useful when you run it.
These people are often patted condescendingly on the head and
told to go play with their debug collection.
That doesn't mean that Perl isn't the coolest stuff going though.
And (that Wall guy should have his own ice cream) rew
Rescue the damsel in distress
Go to the hospital
Repair the car
Steve Pritchard
John Jordan wrote in message <37b2c4d3....@news.spiretech.com>...
>ali...@Hawaii.Edu (Allan Izen -- DOH - Food and Drug Branch) dijo a
>todos por la red:
>
>>John Jordan (j...@spiriton.com) wrote:
>>
>>>Occasionally I will make a concerted effort to try and drag out a
sentence ...
>
>>Since the word 'concerted' means to do something jointly or in unison,
you
>>either have multiple personality disorder or you've made a grammatical
>>error.
>
>quoted from someone else, not that it matters. I could be as guilty of
>it as the person I quoted, because I thought "concerted" could be used
>with that meaning also.
>
>But, having scurried to my dictionary, the sole meaning of "concerted"
>seems to be "in unison." This is a Webster's New Universal Unabridged.
>Deluxe Second Edition, the largest dictionary I have in the house.
>It's a mere 10cm thick, however, so maybe someone else with a larger
>dictionary can find the other meaning. If two of us here used it that
>way, the additional meaning must be recorded somewhere, even if only
>as dialect.
'Twas I that used it. I too went and checked my dictionaries before
responding. I've used the word that way all my life, was taught it that way
and felt sure it must be right. My dictionary says not. Dialect it may well
be in that case.
Tetractys
> Tetractys wrote:
> >JenXena wrote:
> >> According to my "The Little, Brown Handbook", which I usually
> >> go by to settle these matters in my own writing, "Use an apostrophe
> >> plus -s to form the plurals of letters, numbers, and words named
> >> as words."
> >But not abbreviations and acronyms, which was the point under
> >discussion?
> Okay, Tetty, I've looked in four sources, and I can not find ANY mention
> of plural abbreviations or acronyms.
>
> I tried. No idea.
I think that was my point, that it was never "the norm" to use an apostrophe
to form plurals of abbreviations and acronyms, as Mr. Jordan stated in his
original take on the matter.
">John Jordan wrote:
>
>> ... It used to be the norm that abbreviations, acronyms and a few other
>> special terms always took the apostrophe to form a plural...."
I can imagine that it may certainly have been common usage, because you
see it on signage all over the place, and may even have been taught, but
I don't think it was ever correct, which was my original point. I may be
wrong, and I may have missed the citation along the line, but I think most
of the posts so far deal with things other than abbreviations and acronyms.
--
T.
Leslie J. Thompson
Xena wrote:
>
> Roy DeGregory <r...@cysource.com> wrote in
> <EgH83.959$vN3....@typ32b.nn.bcandid.com>:
>
> >
> >Xena wrote in message
> ><8DE3F1ECDxenac...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
> >>Roy DeGregory <r...@cysource.com> wrote in
> >><mRE83.1370$Lu2....@typ52b.nn.bcandid.com>:
>
> >>I dare you to try it. My siblings and I used to spit cornbread all over
> >>each other when our parents weren't looking.
> >>
> >>Go ahead. I dare you.
> >
> >
> >Well, okay, but we used to do it WHILE our parents were looking. That's
> >where we did the walking backwards thing.
> >
> >>Xena (Ah, the entertainment of youth...)
> >
> >
> >Ahhhh . . .
> >
> >Roy
>
> But did you ever do the "disappearing butter bean trick"? My brother got
> me with that one when I was about five. You put mashed potatos on the palm
> of your hand, swipe your flattened hand over the bean, and "Voila!" The
> bean disappears.
>
> I tried it.
>
> Only I didn't know you rub the mashed potatos on your hand to make it
> stick. I put the butter bean down on my Mom's fairly new French Provencal
> table and SMACKED! that puppy as hard as I could. I left somewhat of a
> fossilized-looking imprint of a butterbean engrained into the table.
>
> I got the whoopin' of my life while my brother was hiding under the table
> laughing and discreetly wiping mashed potatos off his hands.
>
> Never trust your siblings.
>
> Xena
>
> --
> You can read my stuff at my web site:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Bistro/4967
Leslie J. Thompson
before the horrendous news items of this year). My sentences are
shorter, and the word choice is tighter and terser -- if that makes any
sense -- than the way I normally choose to write. The expositiory
sentences re background, whether it be setting or character's
background, are longer with more relaxed words as suitable for
descriptive writing, which is my favorite.
On my first rewrite, I always have to check for misplaced modifiers and
clauses, which I know are among my writing weaknesses. I also use a
thesaurus to try for more acccurate, explicit words to convey to the
reader my exact meaning, mood, whatever.
One of my writing profs said to read your work aloud. You will be
surprised at how much this show up flaws in sentence structure or story
flow.
Xena wrote:
>
> Let's try this again...
>
> My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I tend
> to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
> to write long complex sentences. Besides the fact that shorter sentences
> indicate a more urgent pace, my writing instructor spoke about rhythm and
> about interesting the reader by varying sentence structure.
>
> I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
> this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure? Do you think
> that this affects the way your reader perceives your writing? Do you think
> that this is important to writing style? For what other reason besides
> pace should a writer vary sentence structure?
>
> Thank you in advance for your sincere comments to this writing related
> post.
>
> Xena
>
> --
>
> You can read my stuff at my web site:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Bistro/4967
>
> Check out my latest, "Science Versus the Bobbin".
Leslie J. Thompson
them around on a third "try it again" from her editor.
Lucy Kemnitzer wrote:
>
> On 12 Jun 1999 23:54:44 GMT, no...@cybersnippinhighway.net (Xena)
> wrote:
>
> >Let's try this again...
> >
> >My writing teacher informed me (this was a couple of years ago) that I tend
> >to write most of my sentences using the same structure repeatedly. I tend
> >to write long complex sentences. Besides the fact that shorter sentences
> >indicate a more urgent pace, my writing instructor spoke about rhythm and
> >about interesting the reader by varying sentence structure.
> >
> >I was hoping that you other writers out there would have some comments on
> >this. Do you make a point of varying the sentence structure? Do you think
> >that this affects the way your reader perceives your writing? Do you think
> >that this is important to writing style? For what other reason besides
> >pace should a writer vary sentence structure?
> >
> >Thank you in advance for your sincere comments to this writing related
> >post.
> >
> >Xena
> >
>
> Oh, definitely if you get this feeling of a monotonous drone, go
> through and break up some of your sentences.
>
> Rhythm means a lot to me: the micro rhythm of the word after word,
> the mezzo rhythm of the sentence and the paragraph, the macro
> rhythm of chapter after chapter.
>
> Did I tell you guys how, between computer meltdowns, I spent this
> winter and spring baffled by the ending of the novel I just
> finished? I knew all the events that would happen, but I couldn't
> figure out where to stop. A long chain of events prompted me to
> think about turning my dinky short chapeters into long ones, which
> meant moving some material around and changing a handful of words.
> Right away though, I saw that I had always known where to end it,
> but formerly I couldn't end it where it ought o end because of the
> rhythm.
>
> My chapters start on an answer and end on a question, and I like
> to have a walking rhythm to events. Somehow, the short chapters
> weren't allowing the last ones to swing properly (I do like the
> novel to speed up a little towards the end, but proportionately),
> and the question was falling outside the beats of the last
> chapter. When I consolidated and added material, it just rocked
> better.
>
> The same thing happens with paragraphs, sentences, even words and
> syllables, sometimes.
>
> Lucy Kemnitzer
Leslie J. Thompson
Paul Martin wrote:
>
> I have to admit, I never make a conscious effort to vary the length of my
> sentences. I don't really give a lot of thought to the rules that were hammered
> into my head in grade school, other than the obvious ones like "Never end a
> sentence with a preposition." I usually just write and see how it sounds as I
> read it over afterward.
> Now that you mention it, though, I do tend to follow the pattern that you
> describe. How weird that I never noticed.
>
> Paul
>
> --
> "A discussion is an exchange of knowledge, as opposed to an argument which is
> an exchange of ignorance."
Leslie J. Thompson
Xena wrote:
>
> Julie Fitzgerald <fit...@Home.com> wrote in <37636EB8...@Home.com>:
>
> >Lucy Kemnitzer wrote:
> >>> snip>>
> >> My chapters start on an answer and end on a question,
> >
> >This is perfect for me! In my forthcoming best seller, I haven't
> >designated any chapter breaks at all, preferring instead to see how it
> >turned out pace-wise. I have four character points of view, and thought
> >I'd just sort of divide it up naturally, but now I have a better idea.
> >
> >
> >and I like
> >> to have a walking rhythm to events. Somehow, the short chapters
> >> weren't allowing the last ones to swing properly (I do like the
> >> novel to speed up a little towards the end, but proportionately),
> >> and the question was falling outside the beats of the last
> >> chapter. When I consolidated and added material, it just rocked
> >> better.
> >>
> >> The same thing happens with paragraphs, sentences, even words and
> >> syllables, sometimes.
> >>
> >> Lucy Kemnitzer
> >
>
> Just curious. Did you outline the novel first? Maybe at least make a list
> of events or scenes? I was just wondering because sometimes this is how I
> start to work out the plot and by looking at the events, I get a feeling
> right away of how I'm going to break up the chapters. At one point, I did
> wonder if I was doing it wrong because I hadn't taken a class or spoken
> with any other writers before. I felt I was doing it the only way I knew
> how.
John Jordan
Well, since you sort of challenged me on this final point (we've
settled the issue as to the numerals, letters and words named as
words), I decided it was time to get back into this thread. Until now
I have just read the responses and decided to let others do the
research.
First, the fact that the stylebook says nothing about acronyms and
abbreviations doesn't mean that it was never the norm. My stylebook
also says nothing about the issue. Silence merely leaves us hanging.
I could argue that abbreviations like "STD" for "sexually transmitted
disease" are really "letters," and therefore come under the rule for
letters. But I realize that is thin and one could just as easily argue
that that is not the intent of the rule. I could also argue that they
are representations of words being named as words, but that is also
pretty hard to sustain.
So after I checked my stylebook, I grabbed my big Webster, published
about ten years ago. Again, I came up empty. There is no punctuation
section in it at all. Even word "acronym" is defined merely as a word
like "radar," and that's it. Of course, I would never pluralize
"radar" as "radar's" -- "radar" is now a real word. When I used
"acronym" in my original post I meant something like "MADD" for
"Mothers Against Drunk Driving."
The stylebook and Webster are pretty much the extent of authority I
have here at the house at the moment. I have a bunch of other writing
books, but most are buried in boxes during the remodeling, and none is
really a style manual anyway.
So I decided I would start grabbing some books down off the shelf and
see if I could find some with plurals of abbreviations and see how
they did it. You should be proud that I thought your challenge was
worth this much effort -- not counting writing this, I spent an hour
flipping through pages. Sheesh, what I go through to preserve my
honor.
The reason it took me so long is what is interesting -- publishers
don't use abbreviations! I looked and looked and looked. Once in
awhile I found an abbreviation, but rarely in the plural. Finally I
found four books on point. Two used the apostrophe, and two did it
without the apostrophe. The two which did it with the apostrophe were
published in 1980 and 1982. (The usages were "IPO's" for "initial
public offerings," and "IRA's" for "individual retirement accounts.")
The others were 1990 and 1992. Of course, four books is a pretty small
statistical sample, so we can't really say that proves anything
definitively. My honor wasn't important enough to get a larger sample.
But there is one thing interesting here -- considering how hard it was
to find any, evidently it is considered bad form to use abbreviations,
in the plural or otherwise. Of course there are some which are
ubiquitous -- "etc.," for example, but then there is no logical use
for that abbreviation in the plural anyway. It seems that how to
pluralize abbreviations is more of a tempest in a teapot than I
thought. Not much point in arguing about something that isn't going to
be used anyway. Of course we see them all the time in Usenet, but who
cares about that? It's in a manuscript that I want to look correct.
So, as a result of this thread, I am going to change my ways slightly.
I'll still use the apostrophe with numbers, letters, and words named
as words, as I always have. But with abbreviations used in a
manuscript, I'm going to write them out for those rare cases when they
need to be in the plural. Rather than "STD's" or "STDs," I will write
"sexually transmitted diseases." We should probably all do it that way
anyway.
NOTICE: The e-mail address is deliberately incorrect. The username should be "jcj," not "jxj."
be...@kerch.com
> Xena, right now I am doing a hate crime story (fiction, started long
> before the horrendous news items of this year). My sentences are
> shorter, and the word choice is tighter and terser -- if that makes any
> sense -- than the way I normally choose to write.
Elleston Trevor writes Spy Thrillers with the pen name "Adam Hall".
I've noticed that when the action in his stories gets intense, the
prose tends toward run-on sentences. The non-stop gush of words seems
to push the pace of the story even faster. I bet this is a lot harder
to pull off than it looks.
(I always say that Ian Fleming's Bond stories made me want to be a spy
when I grew up; and Trevor/Hall's Quiller stories cured me of it. Fun
reading if you like that genre.)
--berry
Jerry Kindall
> "Leslie J. Thompson" <stdl...@shsu.edu> writes:
>
> > Xena, right now I am doing a hate crime story (fiction, started
> > long before the horrendous news items of this year). My sentences
> > are shorter, and the word choice is tighter and terser -- if that
> > makes any sense -- than the way I normally choose to write.
>
> Elleston Trevor writes Spy Thrillers with the pen name "Adam Hall".
> I've noticed that when the action in his stories gets intense, the
> prose tends toward run-on sentences. The non-stop gush of words
> seems to push the pace of the story even faster. I bet this is a lot
> harder to pull off than it looks.
SF writer Harry Harrison uses a similar trick in his "Stainless Steel
Rat" novels. As a kid, they were of course the first Harrison novels I
ever read, as they were recommended by a friend of mine. I was appalled
at first -- I thought the guy couldn't put a sentence together. Then I
got around to reading "West of Eden," and realized that the style of the
"Rat" books was intentional.
--
Jerry Kindall <mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com> Technical Writing, etc.
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/> We Wrote the Book!
"He is often brusque, which can be mistaken for nasty." -- Carol Flynt
You have been warned!