Rules of Grammar

jonpiper · Dec 25, 2006

I believe there are two types grammar rules.

Type 1
These are the rules that define the elements of grammar. These include the definition of passive sentences. Definitions cannot be broken.

Type 2
These are the rules that tell us when and how to apply the first type of rules to our writing.

The first type are really basic principals and by definition cannot be broken. The second type are guidelines for useage, and as we become experienced we should explore creative ways to utilize the basic elements of grammar.

Jamesaritchie · Dec 25, 2006

Rules

jonpiper said:
I believe there are two types grammar rules.

Type 1
These are the rules that define the elements of grammar. These include the definition of passive sentences. Definitions cannot be broken.

Type 2
These are the rules that tell us when and how to apply the first type of rules to our writing.

The first type are really basic principals and by definition cannot be broken. The second type are guidelines for useage, and as we become experienced we should explore creative ways to utilize the basic elements of grammar.

Hard to argue with this. In the end, it always comes down to what works, and very often to what sounds right, whether it is technically right or not.

jonpiper · Dec 25, 2006

Right, James. And I think we tend to mix the two concepts when we discuss grammar. Creative writers can break the second type of rules all the time, with good results.

Deleted member 42 · Dec 25, 2006

I also really wish that people didn't reduce grammar to rules; that's not what it is, really.

And I think writers are unnecessarily tortured about grammar -- Mr. Ritchie is, I think, absolutely right.

PeeDee · Dec 25, 2006

It's another in a series of things which paralyze writers and which take their focus away from telling good stories. It's amazing the things a writer can fret about instead of just writing.

scarletpeaches · Dec 25, 2006

PeeDee - your signature's freaking me out. Have I drunk too much caffeine lately or are those dancing smileyheads really there?

PeeDee · Dec 25, 2006

They're there, and I think they're starting to freak me out. They will go away shortly. Promise.

scarletpeaches · Dec 25, 2006

I'm sure I used to date one of them.

blacbird · Dec 25, 2006

Medievalist said:
I also really wish that people didn't reduce grammar to rules; that's not what it is, really.

And I think writers are unnecessarily tortured about grammar -- Mr. Ritchie is, I think, absolutely right.

Agreed. And it's also important to remember that these "rules" grew organically out of the normal use of language for communication, initially oral, only later written. Over time, all languages evolve, and the "rules" evolve with them.

One of the chief reasons English is the principal world language, by far the most widely-adopted second language, and French isn't, is that the French tend to strait-jacket their language to guard it against the intrusion of things from other languages. That's why you get such sillinesses in French as "potato" becoming pomme de terre -- "apple of the earth".

caw

Bufty · Dec 26, 2006

They make me smile.

PeeDee said:
They're there, and I think they're starting to freak me out. They will go away shortly. Promise.

Deleted member 42 · Dec 26, 2006

blacbird said:
One of the chief reasons English is the principal world language, by far the most widely-adopted second language, and French isn't, is that the French tend to strait-jacket their language to guard it against the intrusion of things from other languages. That's why you get such sillinesses in French as "potato" becoming pomme de terre -- "apple of the earth".

caw

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language
is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't
just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their
pockets for new vocabulary."
(James D. Nicoll rec.arts.sf-lovers 1990-05-15)

Kentuk · Dec 26, 2006

Medievalist said:
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language
is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't
just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their
pockets for new vocabulary."
(James D. Nicoll rec.arts.sf-lovers 1990-05-15)

Great quote. Are you sure you didn't write it and then attribute it for authority's sake?

jpserra · Dec 28, 2006

blacbird said:
Agreed. And it's also important to remember that these "rules" grew organically out of the normal use of language for communication, initially oral, only later written. Over time, all languages evolve, and the "rules" evolve with them.

One of the chief reasons English is the principal world language, by far the most widely-adopted second language, and French isn't, is that the French tend to strait-jacket their language to guard it against the intrusion of things from other languages. That's why you get such sillinesses in French as "potato" becoming pomme de terre -- "apple of the earth".

caw

Don't be ridiculous. Apples are a fruit, not a vegetable!

John

Rules of Grammar

jonpiper

Jamesaritchie

jonpiper

Deleted member 42

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

scarletpeaches

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

scarletpeaches

blacbird

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

Deleted member 42

Kentuk

I want to write what I want to write

jpserra

Recovering Gumshoe