# Intro (to grammar book)



## EmmaSohan (Jan 3, 2017)

I rewrote this intro after reading the comments below. (Thanks!). The newer version, in case anyone is entering now:

*Sequential Phrases: A Simple, Primitive, Powerful Grammar for Writing*

This book is about the hidden grammar of English.

We can think of language as having three parts. First is the construction of words; without that there is no communication. Second is constructing phrases from words. Without that, we could communicate only simple ideas.

Dog the brown quick lazy jumped fox a over.​
Given those, the third part of a language is rules for connecting phrases. Without that . . . actually, we would be able to communicate a lot:

I'm stunned
He has a crush on _me_?
That's unfathomable
I just wanted someone to _like_ me
I couldn't even imagine _that_.​
English has developed a lot of somewhat complicated rules for how to connect phrases. I will call that English grammar (EG). Without those rules, we could write only a sequence of unconnected phrases. But, as the above shows (and I will show again and again), a lot can be communicated with a sequence of unconnected phrases.

I'm walking in a crowd in the school hallway, a hand rubs my butt, then someone else laughs about it. I turn around to see who did it, all the guys are smirking, all the girls look at me with contempt, they think I deserve that, I don't know who rubbed my ass, someone behind me whispers _trash_, I whirl around, I can't tell who said that either.​
I will call that Sequential Phrase Grammar (SePG). It's the hidden grammar of English-- this is the first book to talk about it (as far as I know).

It's easy to show that SePG exists. First, it logically must -- it's essentially the _absence_ of rules. How can an absence not exist? Yes, I will talk about "rules" of SePG, and at times this will seem like a grammar book. But those rules are only (1) principles of how the brain understands language and (2) techniques for making SePG work in the environment of English Grammar. No one has to learn SePG, because it's already in everyone's brain.

Second, I can write in pure SePG and be understood. The next example is meant to be disconcerting, like you are actually being shot at:

Someone with a gun. Down the far end of the hallway, to my left. What? Who? I'm frozen -- _wasting a second._ CRACK! a _bullet_ chips the wall near me and ricochets down the hallway.
My body JOLTS into motion, running away! away! away! A second _bullet_ CRACKLES off the wall to my right, shocking me, I trip and almost fall, bouncing clumsily against the left wall. Run! run! until I reach the end of the hall. Duck around the corner.​
Writers have spent the last, say, 150 years learning to appeal to SePG, and they have spent the last 100 years breaking the rules of EG but following SePG. (For example, Hemingway.) Writers break the rules so often that the actual grammar of writing is now quite different from the grammar rules found in textbooks. And they keep breaking the rules -- there is no way to understand written English without acknowledging SePG. (I have tried.)

I can teach you to write in SePG. Maybe you will want to write a stray SePG sentence.

My customers are in sweats and heavy sweaters, their hair unbrushed, lazy Saturday, the week peeling off of them. (_How Lucky You Are_, Lewis, page 33)​
Maybe you want to use SePG for a scene, character, or a whole story. We might expect SePG to be powerless given its simplicity and primitiveness, but it's not -- the freedom from rules yields a huge, subtle power of expression. SePG in a third style.

Then she asks if I know why I'm here, and I just shake my head no and I'm ashamed, but it's no big deal to her and she just gestures and I guess I'm supposed to follow her, so I do, but she's limping like something's wrong with her leg, and suddenly I think maybe I'm here cos I like guys, but that doesn't make sense either.​
(SePG does have to be long sentences, they just make the style more obvious.)

Or maybe you just want very easy-to-understand writing. This book discusses the dark side of English grammar -- constructs that are perfectly legal, but not perfectly easy understand, because they break the rules of SePG.

A hidden grammar? Really? Something that influences how everyone writes and understands English? You might be thinking I'm crazy, and I will not blame you for that.

Yet . . . reread what I just wrote. Everything is logical. Everything is explained. I have hundreds of examples. From my perspective, I am telling you that the world is round and revolves around the sun.

I am a writer and a reader. When I see anything new in grammar, I ask how I can use it to make my writing better, then I practice using it. I have the obsessive-compulsive skills needed to over-analyze anything. That apparently makes me unique.

I'm not talking about things in outer space, or things you need an high-energy particle accelerator to explore. I'm talking about things in books; I am talking about what you can write. So you don't need to trust me on anything.

I don't even _want_ you to trust me. Except . . . if you don't read the next chapter, you're making a big mistake.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 4, 2017)

As a fellow grammar enthusiast, I entirely respect your endeavours but to me, the biggest challenge is that you seem to be winging alot of this. Cite sources and examples. I've mentioned Chomsky to you before - are you building on his work, proposing a counterclaim to it, or what? There's no mention of corpus grammars, nothing. My biggest concern if I were to receive this query letter would be that I'm about to be presented with a massive exercise in wheel-reinventing.

Non fiction querying is very rigorous. What are your credentials in this field?


----------



## felixm (Jan 4, 2017)

Emma, you have given us all a complicated question/task of how to understand and respond to a new idea. 
 My first thought is that your intro could be titled "Sequential Phrases, A Powerful Writing Tool".  And then you should, IMHO, be more fluid in putting forth your reasons for writing your book, perhaps telling us that authors for years have been inventing their own unique grammars, and then so on and so forth, as we old grammarians say.  FYI,  I have NO credentials in the field;  I know only what I've been taught.

Your great example at the end of your post makes sense as I read it.  I get it and can see the action, but I do think that the first sentence would read better if it read "I'm walking in a crowd in the school hallway and feel a hand rubbing my butt." And so on and so forth.

In the end, though, what sells seems to be the most important thing for any author who wants to publish.  Hey, I am not bashing your SPG in any way.  A man of my generation said it best: "The times they are a-changing."   Good Luck


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 4, 2017)

bdcharles said:


> As a fellow grammar enthusiast, I entirely respect your endeavours but to me, the biggest challenge is that you seem to be winging alot of this. Cite sources and examples. I've mentioned Chomsky to you before - are you building on his work, proposing a counterclaim to it, or what? There's no mention of corpus grammars, nothing. My biggest concern if I were to receive this query letter would be that I'm about to be presented with a massive exercise in wheel-reinventing.
> 
> Non fiction querying is very rigorous. What are your credentials in this field?



I would like to add any relevant research or literature or thoughts. Yes to soloing on most of this, but that's because I couldn't find much

My impression is that linguists are very interested in the construction of words, and very interesting in the construction of phrases. Then they stop there, which is to say, they don't seem that interested in combining phrases, like for example compound sentences. So they stop where I want to start.

Grammarians tend to be descriptive. So, for example, they name the left-dislocation (_the times they are a changing_ is a standard example). And they show that it's used occasionally. But they don't take a writer's perspective of why a writer would use it. Or why people can use it without any problems. Or how much it is like so many other things we do that are essentially the same thing but not left-dislocations.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 5, 2017)

Take a look at corpus linguistics (which is about having recorded samples of text, be they spoken, written or otherwise, that determines all possible phrase structures) and generative or context-free grammars (which is in many ways more akin to what you're doing, and suggests various weird and wonderful rules from which you can derive permissible phrases)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 5, 2017)

bdcharles said:


> Take a look at corpus linguistics (which is about having recorded samples of text, be they spoken, written or otherwise, that determines all possible phrase structures) and generative or context-free grammars (which is in many ways more akin to what you're doing, and suggests various weird and wonderful rules from which you can derive permissible phrases)



I think it's a context-free grammar. But I don't see how it helps to say that. Or why anyone but a linguist would care, it's really their own term for categorizing their own theories.

I am not sure how corpus is relevant. Take putting a comma between the verb and a prepositional phrase.

[FONT=Cambria, serif]Shewas still walking, towards the sound of the nail gun. 

[/FONT]
The author wanted to know if that made sense. A corpus doesn't really answer that, right? Really, the author needed to know that breaking the rule accomplished something worthwhile. Then you have to get into functionalism. (I think it did, enough to break the rule.) If you want to be prescriptive, that's against the rules of English grammar, but that isn't really an issue for most writers. It can be generated by the context-free rules of SePG. The advantage of SePG is that it handles the seemingly-endless rule-breakings.

And, again, if there is some place linguists have addressed this issue, that would be very interesting to me. The more basic example is "I answered the phone, because I was bored." Why the comma? I suspect most authors can get the comma right, but do linguists even address that?


----------



## Ell337 (Jan 6, 2017)

My reaction to this is to say that writing is not a series of rapid cuts in a movie. Your 'sentences' of connected phrases reads like an attempt to write like a movie montage. And for me, I'd be correcting that author and telling them to please write in whole sentences. There are a very very few places a more rapid fire approach can work, but even fewer authors who can pull it off.

For example:



> Then she asks if I know why I'm here, and I just shake my head no and I'm ashamed, but it's no big deal to her and she just gestures and I guess I'm supposed to follow her, so I do, but she's limping like something's wrong with her leg, and suddenly I think maybe I'm here cos I like guys, but that doesn't make sense either.



Does it REALLY lose impact if you break up this horrible clump of a run on sentence into parts? 



> Then she asks if I know why I am here, and I just shake my head no. I am ashamed, but it is no big deal to her. She just gestures. I guess I am supposed to follow her, so I do, but she is limping like something is wrong with her leg. Suddenly I think maybe I am here because I like guys, but that does not make sense either.



Couple of additional points. Do not use contractions ever (!) except in direct speech. They slow readers down and interrupt the flow of reading.  Also avoid 'just' its one of those words that mean nothing, but also takes impact away from anything that comes after them. Forget 'just' exists and never use it again


----------



## Plasticweld (Jan 6, 2017)

Ell337 said:


> My reaction to this is to say that writing is not a series of rapid cuts in a movie. Your 'sentences' of connected phrases reads like an attempt to write like a movie montage. And for me, I'd be correcting that author and telling them to please write in whole sentences. There are a very very few places a more rapid fire approach can work, but even fewer authors who can pull it off.




Emma has helped me with my writing, I suffer from too many commas.... but I try to write like I speak.  For the reader to read it at the same pace and have the same tempo and emphasis-- on certain words or sentences I have to resort to using punctuation that might be non-conventional.  I view punctuation as something as common as speaking with hand gestures and facial expressions.  The true gift of the story teller is to animate the story through every means possible.  I would not want to be in a situation where I was told to tell a story to and audience... and not use the visual and audio inflections in telling the story.  Those tools often are the difference between someone hearing a amazing story that they are enthralled with, and being bored.  I am convinced that two people could use the same words, and have completely different reactions...delivery is everything!


I also think that subconsciously even though you may not be familiar with a different style of punctuation, that it still causes the desired effect that the writer might want to use; just as you sometimes have no problem at all understanding an argument between two people, even though they are speaking a language foreign to you.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 6, 2017)

Ell337 said:


> My reaction to this is to say that writing is not a series of rapid cuts in a movie. Your 'sentences' of connected phrases reads like an attempt to write like a movie montage. And for me, I'd be correcting that author and telling them to please write in whole sentences. There are a very very few places a more rapid fire approach can work, but even fewer authors who can pull it off.



Yeah, it can read like pieces. I would like to know more about your reaction. If I add an _and _to the end of this sentence, it becomes grammatically correct. Does that solve the problem? I'm guessing not.

 I turn around to see who did it, all the guys are smirking, all the girls look at me with contempt, they think I deserve that, I don't know who rubbed my ass, someone behind me whispers _trash_, I whirl around, *and *I can't tell who said that either.

And I don't understand: If I add in some punctuation and conjunctions to make it look normal, I'm guessing you will like it better, but it's still the same pieces, right?

I turn around to see who did it, and all the guys are smirking; all the girls look at me with contempt, because they think I deserve that. So I don't know who rubbed my ass. Meanwhile, someone behind me whispers _trash._ I whirl around, but I can't tell who said that either.


----------



## Ell337 (Jan 6, 2017)

I would edit this like this:



> I turn around to see who did it full stop All the guys are smirkingfull stop All the girls look at me with contempt semi-colon they think I deserve that it full stop I don't know who rubbed my ass full stop Someone behind me whispers _trash full stop I whirl around, *and** but I can't tell who said that either it.
> 
> *_


Reasons - the run on takes away the emphasis on the actions and makes them almost indistinguishable from each other, and you lose the importance and impact of being touched, of the girls' looks, of the comment. What it does not do, as you hoped, is make it immediate. It is horribly difficult to read and you have to go slow, or even worse go back and read again to make sure you followed it. 



> I turn around to see who did it


 did what? I assume there is a preceding action that is referred to but it might be better to repeat it for emphasis and clarity. 




> I turn around .... _I whirl around...._


_ she is spinning like a top. It's making me dizzy to read it, can't imagine how she is feeling._

Also why is this in present tense because its  hard to write, almost impossible to do well, and basically horrible to read? Yes I know its the fashion in YA lit, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to copy.

Let's put in simple past and rearrange things a little so the events are connected with each better. 



> I turned around to see who touched me. I do not know who rubbed my ass with such familiarity. The guys all smirked at me and the girls looked at me with contempt; they think I deserved it. Someone whispered 'trash' but I could not tell who said it.



Now you may not agree with all of my edits, but I'd argue my version is easier to read and follow what is happening, is still immediate, and the events have more impact being separated slightly by the punctuation.


----------



## wainscottbl (Feb 21, 2017)

I'd say, don't call English grammar "EG". This is for a book, so it comes off a lazy, which is not what you want to be enforcing. It's only two words. I'm willing to allow more leeway with 



> Sequential Phrase Grammar (SePG)



I still don't like it though. 

I know you are quoting this, but I just have to say this is anathema and blasphemy:



> My customers are in sweats and heavy sweaters, their hair unbrushed, lazy Saturday, the week peeling off of them. (_How Lucky You Are, Lewis, page 33)_



I hardly get the Saturday thing. My God....break the rules a bit, but...well...in any case, I like your remark about how the rules get broken, broken some more...that's a whole subject in itself! I hope you address it in your book!


> Then she asks if I know why I'm here, and I just shake my head no and I'm ashamed, but it's no big deal to her and she just gestures and I guess I'm supposed to follow her, so I do, but she's limping like something's wrong with her leg, and suddenly I think maybe I'm here cos I like guys, but that doesn't make sense either.



God, I hope you declare that anathema in your book. 

Upon the whole, I like it very much. Very charmingly written. Simple, but eloquent.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 21, 2017)

The books and websites have surprisingly good agreement on the rules for English grammar. I call that EG. If breaking those rules is anathema, we are all pagans. Anyway, it's kind of a technical term and in my book 160 times, so hard to get rid of.

I suspect most people think "the rules of grammar" are the rules they have in their head. There's no consensus on that! I do talk about Writer's grammar, which is what most people find nonjarring. Then most writers by definition are following the rules and only a few of us deliberately breaking them. To answer your concern, I clearly point out that writing in SePG, while it could be EG or Writers' Grammar, often is not.

And I have no idea if Hemingway was considered a blasphemer in his time. Or Dan Brown. At some point, some of the rule-breaking becomes familiar. Does anyone know?

Thanks for your comments.





wainscottbl said:


> I'd say, don't call English grammar "EG". This is for a book, so it comes off a lazy, which is not what you want to be enforcing. It's only two words. I'm willing to allow more leeway with
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 21, 2017)

Emma Sohan, since I assume you have read many grammar books. Have you a favorite grammar book among many? If so do you have a reference list? The one I want is expensive, and later if I am able to get an approach to grammar that helps that is low cost, I see no reason homeschooling books need to exist. I am their ideal customer, albeit niche. I am looking for one I can use for self-learning with a workbook and answer key but applied to language ages for high school but preferably adults in college. I need to invest more in grammar books.Sadly I invested in so many books on how to write what debra dixon calls gmc (finding the want and need when one writes down a subconsciously and to do that every time). That's my way maybe unique view of outlining stories. Because without gmc you can't write a decent story, is what I believe (even though practice and studying genre are what I need to do and will invest lightly and focus on grammar). Grammar girl, the blue book of grammar won't work for me. I need a hands-on approach what people call kinesthetic learning. Thank you for any replies.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 21, 2017)

I am sorry, I cannot help. I am not even sure what you want to learn. I have read a lot of grammar and style books, but (second reason I can't help) I have not kept track of which is which. You could ask on the Writing Discussion thread for grammar books which present problems for you to answer (if that's what you want). I am painfully aware that my two books assume a basic grammar knowledge and then build on that.

For example, my book on modern grammar (not the SePG book) has a chapter on writing fragments. I assume you just want to learn what is or is not a fragment. I am not sure how that would be useful in modern writing . . .but I also can't imagine not knowing.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 21, 2017)

My most basic and immediate need is writing and composing paragraphs for different needs and mainly want to consider it in the context of language arts (as in description, narration, organizing a paragraph, and as a bonus maybe the different kind of clauses such as adjective clause). I will ask here as a favor to see if anyone recommends me something, and see what people have to say. I appreciate the honest response.


----------



## wainscottbl (Feb 21, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> The books and websites have surprisingly good agreement on the rules for English grammar. I call that EG. If breaking those rules is anathema, we are all pagans. Anyway, it's kind of a technical term and in my book 160 times, so hard to get rid of.
> 
> I suspect most people think "the rules of grammar" are the rules they have in their head. There's no consensus on that! I do talk about Writer's grammar, which is what most people find nonjarring. Then most writers by definition are following the rules and only a few of us deliberately breaking them. To answer your concern, I clearly point out that writing in SePG, while it could be EG or Writers' Grammar, often is not.
> 
> ...



Oh, no, EG is just venial. I was declaring anathema run-on sentences deemed acceptable. I'm fine with a little liberty in traditional comma rules, but grammar is about logic, and if you go too far....you get a decline in English language, which makes people stupid and unable to express themselves like civilized human beings. I think that this will be the effect of allowing too much liberty. But, that's a point to be made in your book maybe. Does too much liberty in departure from traditional grammar lead to a decline in culture? Is our language declining into something barbaric (back to the barbaric), and will that make our culture uncouth and uncultured, falling not only into "mere semantic decline", but into moral decline? Culture and morals go together, IMO. Language organically develops, but a non-organic, rebellion from tradition, does it go side and side with modernism? Is modernism a good thing? Should modernism, if good, be kept in reign with respect for tradition? Has modernism in grammar and language actually produced modernist moral beliefs? Has more liberty allowed to the pen allowed more liberty granted to morals, that is to say, what once once seen as depraved, is now seen as a choice? Maybe devote  a chapter to this. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 22, 2017)

> So SePG has been slowly but relentlessly eroding the walls of our precious, hard-earned EG, kind of like the Germanic tribes in the time of Rome. Or rock & roll, I guess, or the video games and modern technology currently desocializing our naive and vulnerable youth. Not my problem, I'm just writing an innocent grammar book.



So I acknowledge the issue. Is that what you were expecting? Laughing.

One issue is if further change is good. That would be really interesting to talk about. The other is if, good or not, it can be stopped. I doubt there is any stopping, but I like cutting edge grammar, and I think we write better in 2017 than ever before. The Y/A book I am reading is a little too much, but I can still respect it. Shall I show rule-breaking passages by Faulkner and Hemingway that probably you and I do not like? (And my first choice for music is "new releases" and my second choice is "indie", and I am still awed by the fusion of rap and pop.)


----------

