# Sequential Phrase Grammar



## EmmaSohan (Feb 14, 2016)

There's a primitive grammar of sequences of phrases. I don't know how to discuss it, but . . .

If a writer writes a sequence of phrases, where the commas divide the sentence up into phrases, the reader can read the first phrase, then the second, then the third, and the reader might not understand the underlying grammar, and there doesn't even have to _be _a correct underlying grammar, and most readers won't notice or mind the lack of grammar, readers will just understand the sequence of phrases.

I started out realizing that's what happens in the long sentences by Dickens. Then I realized it explained the writing of authors like Rollins and Brown (and many others). I mean, I spent more than a month trying to understand the rules they were following for their commas, then had the aha moment that they simple weren't doing any complicated grammar at all.


> His lips moved, his tongue thick. (Crichton)
> Francisco grabbed the bole of a jungle sapling, struggling not to fall. (Rollins)


I stopped looking down on this style when I found sentences like that in my action scenes. And my favorite book used sequential phrases for a long sentence. I discovered that if writing annoyed me, I could turn off my grammar judge and enjoy the content.

And there's more, but I'm talking to myself. If you already knew this, I'm impressed. If you think this is crazy, I'm sympathetic, but it makes sense of a lot of things.


----------



## Flint (Feb 15, 2016)

Yeah, it took me a little while to locate and analyse what was going on with these two sentences.

 Definitely for the second one, I would say the link is in line with it and my current understanding. With the first one, perhaps you could view it as being equivalent to something like 'his lips moved, his tongue being concurrently in a state of thickness' or even 'possessing a thick tongue, his lips moved'. If you were to do that, I'd say the first sentence is also in line with the link.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/participlephrase.htm

I'm not sure. I'd be interested to see what you or others think.


----------



## Aquilo (Feb 15, 2016)

> Francisco grabbed the bole of a jungle sapling, struggling not to fall.



I don't have an issue with this.  Participle phrases are great. There's a lot of discussion about making sure the ongoing action (participle phrase, e.g. struggling not to fall) is something that can't conflict with the main tense of the clause (e.g., grabbed). So no going:

Running, he stopped by the door. (He can't run and stop at the same time).

Participle phrase are infinitive, so express ongoing actions; it's nothing to do with tense. It just shows an action that's ongoing with the tense/action in the main clause. 

But you can use:

Thinking quick, he grabbed the sapling. (mental process v material (action) e.g., you can think and grab something)

However, people stand two sides of the fence here. Some publishers don't like the "Running, he stopped" usage. Some linguists say readers process the information without you having to be so explicit with detail. E.g., you don't have to write: Running, he [then] stopped...

I love the latter argument, as readers process the 'and then' without being guided by the authors. They don't need to be spoon fed. The same can be said with:


> His lips moved, his tongue thick.



Readers make the connection without the added function words, etc. being inserted. 

But you'll always get fevered arguments, for and against. I'd like to think readers are smart, and they can interact and fill in the action sequences. On the flip side, I don't like relying on participle phrases too much. Like with everything else, too much, and it dilutes the story and forces the reader to focus on the words.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Feb 15, 2016)

Hello Emma

Your examples from Crichton and Rollins make perfect sense to me, I use them all the time.

And, no, I've never thought through the formal grammar for these, they just seem to work.

This is a great thread that speaks to our individual styles and how to establish a mood and a rhythm for a particular scene. Let's keep it going.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Terry D (Feb 15, 2016)

Aquilo said:


> I don't have an issue with this.  Participle phrases are great. There's a lot of discussion about making sure the ongoing action (participle phrase, e.g. struggling not to fall) is something that can't conflict with the main tense of the clause (e.g., grabbed). So no going:
> 
> Running, he stopped by the door. (He can't run and stop at the same time).
> 
> ...



Thanks, Aquilo. It is refreshing to see someone discuss an 'Advanced Writing' topic and actually use the proper terminology. Too often in these discussions posters tend to invent terminology for grammatical structures and concept that already exist. 

There are common 'rules' for comma usage, but those rules exist only to help make the written language more clear. What it all really comes down to is the need for that clarity -- a comma is nothing more than a pause and exists to allow the writer to insert pauses where he/she chooses to make the words flow in the manner the author had in mind. They are a powerful tool to help our writing 'sound' the way we want it to. In the examples given, the authors clearly had pace and flow in mind when they wrote them the way they did. There is no wrong or right way to do that -- there is only effective and ineffective.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 15, 2016)

Aquilo said:


> I don't have an issue with this.  Participle phrases are great. There's a lot of discussion about making sure the ongoing action (participle phrase, e.g. struggling not to fall) is something that can't conflict with the main tense of the clause (e.g., grabbed). So no going:
> 
> Running, he stopped by the door. (He can't run and stop at the same time).
> 
> ...






> Staggering to his feet, he pictured his three murdered brethren.



Perhaps he could be staggering to his feet as he pictured them. But I think Brown didn't mean that. I think he meant that the MC staggered to his feet and then pictured his murdered brethren. The exact same for Rollins'



> Panting, Francisco leaned his hands on his scraped knees.



You can call those introductory phrases, but that isn't how they were meant. You can call them adverbially phrases, but they aren't modifying the verb.

Of course they're okay to write, because we all understand sequences of phrases. If you think of these writers as writing sequences of phrases, it all makes easy sense. That's one of the things I'm trying to say.

And if you want to try to be grammatical about these authors, the difficulties just will not stop.



> In the sand, some of the three-toed bird tracks were small, and so faint they could hardly be seen. (Crichton)
> 
> 
> He had his slippers on, and a loose bedgown, and his throat was bare for his greater ease. (Dickens)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 15, 2016)

Terry D said:


> There are common 'rules' for comma usage, but those rules exist only to help make the written language more clear. What it all really comes down to is the need for that clarity -- a comma is nothing more than a pause and exists to allow the writer to insert pauses where he/she chooses to make the words flow in the manner the author had in mind. They are a powerful tool to help our writing 'sound' the way we want it to. In the examples given, the authors clearly had pace and flow in mind when they wrote them the way they did. There is no wrong or right way to do that -- there is only effective and ineffective.



Sometimes. We use a comma to separate items of a list, closely related adjectives, two independent clauses, appositives, and introductory phrases. If these commas looked different, they would help us organize complicated sentences. But they don't look different.

And when there's too many of them, or in too many roles, they "degenerate" into just what you said -- breaking up a sentence into parts. And when all they do is break a sentence into parts, all you have for grammar is a sequence of phrases.

My example from Dickens is below. Yes, we writers can figure out the grammar, perhaps with some study, and even work out the function of each comma. The casual reader will not perceive the underlying grammar of this sentence. Yet they can understand it as a sequence of phrases, broken up by commas.



> He had that rather wild, strained, seared marking about the eyes, which may be observed in all free livers of his class, from the portrait of Jeffries downward, and which can be traced, under various disguises of Art, through the portraits of every Drinking Age.


----------



## Aquilo (Feb 16, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> > Staggering to his feet, he pictured his three murdered brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps he could be staggering to his feet as he pictured them. But I think Brown didn't mean that. I think he meant that the MC staggered to his feet and then pictured his murdered brethren. The exact same for Rollins'



Which is the linguist argument on processing sequence. But from a grammar point of view, there's no escaping that 'staggering to his feet' is ongoing action, so he's doing one whilst thinking of the other. Compare: staggering to his, he pictured... v 'After he staggered to his feet, he pictured...' But the confusion can come in with: Staggering to his feet, he walked over to... (two actions).



> You can call those introductory phrases, but that isn't how they were meant. You can call them adverbially phrases, but they aren't modifying the verb.



They're participle phrases because they're showing ongoing action that's loosely tied to the main tense found in the main clause. The comma shows that loose tie. The gerund gives a participle noun status: smoking is one of he main killers. Yet if you look at past progressive aspect, "he was walking along", both the past tense and participle usage show a similar relationship between the the participle phrase and tense found in the main clause: Walking to the shops, he thought... (past tense, but an ongoing action)

Change tense, the participle stays the same:

Walking to the shops, he thinks
Walking to the shops, he thought

And the same with progressive aspect:

He was walking
He is walking

So it becomes termed a 'participle infinitive phrase' because it uses 1) a participle, 2) it shows infinitive action, 3) it has other elements (objects, compliments etc that make up a phrase). Introductory phrases themselves cover an umbrella of phrases: 

Appositive phrase: The children screaming and running, the woman hid under the covers.
Prepositional: In the back yard, they
Participle infinitive phrase: hopping along, they
Participle phrase: A renowned woman, Jessy would often

But they all do they same thing, which is mostly add supplementary material to the main clause that sets or introduces the scene.



> Of course they're okay to write, because we all understand sequences of phrases. If you think of these writers as writing sequences of phrases, it all makes easy sense. That's one of the things I'm trying to say.



No, I was saying how some grammarians and some publishers don't allow the 'Running, he stopped' participle usage, so some aren't okay to use by them. That sometimes grammar is taken literally by some (he can't run and stop together), when, most times, like yourself, the sequencing can be worked out by the reader.



> And if you want to try to be grammatical about these authors, the difficulties just will not stop.



Agreed. Yet to look at why sentences like the above work, it needs to be broken down into grammatical terms to find out what exactly each word is doing and how it relates to the words that follow (form and function).


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 16, 2016)

I think we are agreeing? All of the sentences above, and the one below are clear and easy to read. That's one of my points.



> The second bullet CRACKLES off the wall to my right, shocking me, I trip and almost fall, bouncing clumsily against the left wall.



To grammatically analyze "His lips moved, his tongue thick." misses the point that it doesn't matter -- no one objected to this sentence.

I thought, and think, that a long sentence has to be grammatically simple. What happens if you write a long sentence that is sequential phrases and perhaps a very difficult grammar? No problem? What happens if you write a long sentence that is grammatically flawless but violates sequential grammar. The one below has problems, even though I find it easier to discern the grammar of the second sentence.



> But I woke up a bit when my parents came in, crying and kissing my face repeatedly, and I reached up for them and tried to squeeze, but my everything hurt when I squeezed, and Mom and Dad told me that I did not have a brain tumor, but that my headache was caused by poor oxygenation, which was caused by my lungs swimming in fluid, a liter and half (!!!!) of which had been successfully drained from my chest, which was why I might feel a slight discomfort in my side, where there was, hey look at that, a tube that went from my chest into a plastic bladder half full of liquid that for all the world resembled my dad's favorite amber ale.





> A single microscopic bacterium, too small to see with the naked eye, but containing the genes for a heart-attack enzyme, streptokinase, or for "ice minus," which prevented frost damage to crops, might be worth five billion dollars to the right buyer.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 16, 2016)

While I don't want to get hung up on participles, they are interesting. Using 9 of them in their first two pages, Brown and Rollins like them. (But apparently not in dialogue -- no one talks that way?) Evanovich is very concerned with readers understanding the underlying grammar so she contrasts nicely to Rollins and Brown. She has two participial phrases on her first page but the next one I could find was page 22.

Aquilo, my understanding is that some people object, for grammatical reasons, to:



> Arriving at the gate, he slid under, exited the Grand Gallery, and ....
> Pushing Sophie from his mind, Fauche started for a moment at the miniature knight on Sauniere's desk.
> Shoving off the tree, Francisco set off once again down the trail, stumbling and weaving.



But once you call the participial phrase an adjective, is the problem gone?

What about when the participial phrase is as the end of the sentence and modifies the subject?

The curator lay for a moment, gasping for breath, taking stock.
"I told you already" the curator stammered, kneeling defenseless on the floor of the gallery.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 16, 2016)

Terry D said:


> Thanks, Aquilo. It is refreshing to see someone discuss an 'Advanced Writing' topic and actually use the proper terminology. Too often in these discussions posters tend to invent terminology for grammatical structures and concept that already exist.



So what? Are you saying that one should not participate if one doesn't know the 'proper' terminology?  I thought the main reason for this site was for us to help each other. Being students some of the time and teachers other times.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 17, 2016)

Jack of all trades said:


> So what? Are you saying that one should not participate if one doesn't know the 'proper' terminology?  I thought the main reason for this site was for us to help each other. Being students some of the time and teachers other times.



Where did I even come close to suggesting people shouldn't participate? I simply appreciate it when a poster takes the time to actually understand what it is they are writing about rather than 'make-up' terminology like "sequential phrases" (all writing is a sequence of phrases, some linked together by connecting words, others standing alone -- so 'sequential phrases' means nothing). Trying to invent terminology only increases the confusion. Yes, members are here to learn -- that's why it is important to reinforce learning the correct terminology. If this were a carpentry site, I'd be just as happy to see someone call a hammer a hammer rather than a 'bangy thing.'


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 17, 2016)

Terry D said:


> Where did I even come close to suggesting people shouldn't participate? I simply appreciate it when a poster takes the time to actually understand what it is they are writing about rather than 'make-up' terminology like "sequential phrases" (all writing is a sequence of phrases, some linked together by connecting words, others standing alone -- so 'sequential phrases' means nothing). Trying to invent terminology only increases the confusion. Yes, members are here to learn -- that's why it is important to reinforce learning the correct terminology. If this were a carpentry site, I'd be just as happy to see someone call a hammer a hammer rather than a 'bangy thing.'




My point is that talking about something with those who know the proper terminology is a good way to learn the jargon. After all, without spending hours taking a class, how does one learn a word one does not know? I haven't tried, but if I Google "bangy thing", will "hammer" come up? It's not like typing in "hammer" and getting a description.

You didn't actually say it, but your attitude seemed to say, "If you're not perfect in your writing knowledge, stay off this forum"? Thank goodness those of us less perfect are allowed to post elsewhere on this site. Since I doubt I could meet your standards, I'll be leaving. At least this thread.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 17, 2016)

Jack of all trades said:


> You didn't actually say it, but your attitude seemed to say, "If you're not perfect in your writing knowledge, stay off this forum"? Thank goodness those of us less perfect are allowed to post elsewhere on this site. Since I doubt I could meet your standards, I'll be leaving. At least this thread.



That's absolute bullshit.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 18, 2016)

Terry D said:


> ...all writing is a sequence of phrases, some linked together by connecting words, others standing alone -- so 'sequential phrases' means nothing)...



Sorry for making this sound like a familiar concept.

When I call it Sequential Phrase Grammar, that opens up the possibility of grammar rules, for example just like a pidgin might have it's own grammar rules.

I think there is one important rule -- that a phrase should be understandable by itself, or with reference to the preceding phrase. Not grammatical:

The United States, which has it's capital in Washington D. C., built in the early 1800's, is in North America.

And I think people have an ability to understand Sequential Phrase Grammar.

Perfectly grammatical in Sequential Phase Grammar:



> I follow the sound, pushing off the wall, pushing Andy Evans off-balance, stumbling into the broken sink. He curses and turns, his fist coming, coming. An explosion in my head and blood in my mouth.He hit me.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 18, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Sorry for making this sound like a familiar concept.
> 
> When I call it Sequential Phrase Grammar, that opens up the possibility of grammar rules, for example just like a pidgin might have it's own grammar rules.
> 
> ...



Whatever, Emma. There's no such thing as 'Sequential Phrase Grammar' it's an invention of your own, which only serves to cause confusion. The whole idea of grammar and punctuation is to reduce confusion, not increase it. If I write a sentence which, upon second reading, sounds confusing, I rewrite it, or re-punctuate it to make it more clear. And I do that using the concepts I was taught in the ninth grade, not some obtuse, invented idea I read on an internet forum.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 21, 2016)

I am the _exact opposite_! I want to learn everything about punctuation and grammar that I can. Every time I study and think about something, I learn sometimes useful (even if also small).

The idea, to try to put it into familiar concepts, is that people can naturally understand a sequence of phrases without applying sentence grammar. That hasn't had much impact on my writing, but it's had some. It's more influenced my reading, because I know to ignore my normal grammar processing for some writers and how to appreciate their style.

It also helps me with understanding writing, though that isn't an issue for most people. The reality is, the following sentence works, and we writers don't need to know any more than that.



> The kid was pale, shivering, unconscious.



But I want to know why it works. Any ideas? I was relating it to sequential phrases, but only because I didn't have any other ideas.


----------



## ppsage (Feb 21, 2016)

> _The kid was pale, shivering, unconscious._


As a reader of history and philosophy, I am often struck by the simplicity of the statements sufficient to express fictional narrative. Sophisticated grammar is not often needed to express the ideas which build up fiction. They are so frequently, as above, simple static images whose characteristics are easily summarized. If they have elements of sequence or causality, these are usually linear and straightforward. Complexity in fiction is built up by scenes, not statements, and so very little in the way of rules is needed to make the simple statements used there understandable. In fact, as above, when complexity is injected into the statements of fiction, the expressionist imagery of poetry is often more useful than the rationalist logic of grammar. It works because it's poetic. A few recent writers of fiction still play with grammatical complexity (Rushdie for one, Eco) but when they do, it's with standard forms. There's not much point in revolutionary grammar because nobody will get it as grammar. The manipulations of structure with which you so often beguile us properly belong, I'd say, more to the realm of poetics. I'd even say that confusing the two is a disservice.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 21, 2016)

_His lips moved, his tongue thick. (Crichton)_
_Francisco grabbed the bole of a jungle sapling, struggling not to fall. (Rollins)
_
His lips moved (independent clause), his tongue thick (dependent clause).

Francisco grabbed the bole of a jungle sapling (independent clause), struggling not to fall (dependent clause with ongoing action).

If you take the comma out, the first example says, "His lips moved his tongue thick." That is then interpreted in Yodaese as, his tongue, which is thick, is being moved by his lips. Erm, what?

In the second example, when you remove the comma, it's the jungle sapling that's struggling not to fall rather than Francisco.

There's no need for a new understanding of grammar, just an understanding of the precepts of grammar as it already is.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 22, 2016)

Patrick said:


> _His lips moved, his tongue thick. (Crichton)_
> _Francisco grabbed the bole of a jungle sapling, struggling not to fall. (Rollins)
> _
> His lips moved (independent clause), his tongue thick (dependent clause).
> ...



Sorry, those are not dependent clauses -- a clause needs a noun and a verb. (If they were, you would have to deal with the "rule" that a dependent clause following an independent clause isn't preceded by a comma.)

As Terry said: When we break, the rules of grammar that can cause confusion. The puzzle, if you want, is why these sentences don't cause confusion.

The first sentence of Hemingway's _To Have and Have Not_ is grammatically incorrect. I'm happy to say it's just wrong. But for the above sentences, they are too typical, and the authors too successful, and it's not even clear how to write them better.

The first sentence of _The Old Man and the Sea_ is grammatically incorrect. I am happy to explain why, in a complicated way involving the laws of grammar, it's brilliant. When I looked for underlying principals of grammar in Brown and Rollins, I was unsatisfied and discouraged.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 22, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Sorry, those are not dependent clauses -- a clause needs a noun and a verb. (If they were, you would have to deal with the "rule" that a dependent clause following an independent clause isn't preceded by a comma.)
> 
> As Terry said: When we break, the rules of grammar that can cause confusion. The puzzle, if you want, is why these sentences don't cause confusion.
> 
> ...



I don't know anybody who strictly abides by the subject+verb criteria, nor do I know of anybody who uses "sequential phase grammar" as their basis for writing. I have always understood a dependent clause as one which cannot stand alone as a sentence. It seems to me that the requirement for a subject and a verb is arbitrary, and it is only an issue for grammarians, rather than writers.

The commas in the examples you provided clarify the meaning, Emma. It seems you've lost sight of the fact that the "rules" of grammar are purely based on the expectations of readers. There really is no mythical gold standard floating around out there for you to stumble upon. The way writers learn how to use commas is by studying a large body of literature and by writing.

Could those examples not be described as parenthetical elements, adding information to the clause? Only, they come at the end of the sentence in the examples provided. There's nothing grammatically incorrect in that.


----------



## Flint (Feb 22, 2016)

Patrick said:


> _His lips moved, his tongue thick. (Crichton)_
> _Francisco grabbed the bole of a jungle sapling, struggling not to fall. (Rollins)
> _
> His lips moved (independent clause), his tongue thick (dependent clause).
> ...



This is also how I would analyse these sentences, personally. 


To give a little bit more detail, I would say something like this:

'his tongue thick' – verbless clause or non-finite dependent clause with 'being' omitted and understood.

http://grammar.about.com/od/tz/g/verblessclauseterm.htm

'struggling not to fall' – non-finite dependent participle clause (with the subject, 'Francisco', omitted and understood from independent clause).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-finite_clause


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 22, 2016)

Patrick, everyone but you defines a clause as having a verb and a noun.

Flint, as far as I know, no one else adds implied words to an analysis. For example. 



> Ilooked at the light-switch, only a foot from her. I looked at her. Ilooked at the switch again. At her. At the switch.


If you add the obviously implied words to the last two phrases, you end up with complete sentences. Yet everyone categorizes them as fragments.

If you want to argue that we should give up on grammatically justifying these phrases and just take them as they are, that's pretty close to my position. Can we agree that there is no justification using traditional grammar?


----------



## Bishop (Feb 22, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Patrick, everyone but you defines a clause as having a verb and a noun.



Technically, it's 'subject' and 'predicate'. In Patrick's defense, writers use non-sentences all the time; not to put words in Mr. Kylo Ren's mouth, but I believe he was trying to illustrate the point that the rules can be bent in these situations. Readers generally don't critique grammar while they read their dinosaur erotica.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 22, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> *Patrick, everyone but you defines a clause as having a verb and a noun.*
> 
> Flint, as far as I know, no one else adds implied words to an analysis. For example.
> 
> ...



Style guides aren't very helpful, and there really is no need for a writers' convention discussing the rules of what constitutes a clause.

The only literature that isn't experimental is that which is never written down. All that matters is that you consider the expectations of readers (which are shifting all the time). There are many rules out there that don't help us in our pursuit of good prose. For instance, ending a sentence with a preposition is a hook for some people to hang your work on. But it shouldn't be.

As Richard Nordquist says (follow the link Flint provided): In traditional grammar, sentence fragments are usually treated as major errors, and students are sternly counseled to avoid them. "Always write in complete sentences," the handbooks insist. "Every one of your sentences should contain both a subject and a predicate."But as students soon figure out, this rule applies only to _their_ sentences, not to the sentences of professional writers. A quick look at the "model essays" included in freshman English anthologies reveals that fragments can be found just about everywhere.


----------



## Flint (Feb 23, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Flint, as far as I know, no one else adds implied words to an analysis.




That's fair enough. I follow modern grammars like this 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199533199/

and this one:



> [SIZE=+1]Small Clauses
> 
> [/SIZE]Finally, we will mention briefly an unusual type of clause, the verbless or SMALL CLAUSE. While clauses usually contain a verb, which is finite or nonfinite, small clauses lack an overt verb:
> [SIZE=-1]Susan found [the job very difficult]
> ...



http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/clauses/fin.htm




EmmaSohan said:


> If you want to argue that we should give up on grammatically justifying these phrases and just take them as they are, that's pretty close to my position. Can we agree that there is no justification using traditional grammar?



In my opinion, there is no justification for everyone having to use any particular English grammar; it will depend on when and where you live and the purposes and goals you are using language for.

 I tend to follow the Oxford Modern Grammar's view which it has in the preface:



> "The aim of this grammar is to offer a modern, concise, but nevertheless wide-ranging description of the structure of contemporary standard British and American English.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...



Aside from happening to agree with (most of) its analyses (including verbless clauses), I follow this grammar because it's a recommended book for my course and I want to pass it. Also, I want to be 'fit for purpose' for proofreading (and editing) publishers' material at some point.

If you have different goals and you find concepts like 'sequential phrase grammar' more useful, then that's how you should go about analysing things, IMO.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 23, 2016)

Fragments are wide-ranging, but no one adds words to them and categorizes them as independent clauses. That was my point -- adding words was an odd way to analyze grammar.

You can give up on grammatically analyzing those sentences, and Brown and Rollins in general. Or you can try to analyze them using traditional grammar, or trying to stretch or modify traditional grammar. If you give up -- you are taking the same route I am.

If you come up with explanations for those two sentences, but your explanations don't agree, and they don't seem to match Aquilo's for a different sentence, your creative explanations are multiplying and you are on the path I abandoned.

If you can handle this sentence, my guess is that you are saying about the same thing as me. (This is from my reading last night. She owns a bakery.)



> My customers are in sweats and heavy sweaters, their hair unbrushed, lazy Saturday, the week peeling off of them.


----------



## Aquilo (Feb 23, 2016)

Readers naturally process information in a sequence, mentioning daily: I gotta do this, this, and this. Participle phrases and most other supplementary material play on the same knowledge, that if they are presented close to each, that click, click, click, familiarity is suggesting that information is being presented that somehow works together to convey meaning. Readers are reprogrammed to help sort the images. 

E.g., basic sequences that readers are familiar with:
I came (click), I saw (click), I conquered (click)
Friends (click), Romans (lick), countrymen (click)
Mind, body, spirit.
Father, Son... holy ghost...

So when readers come a cross a participle phrase, fragments, whatever you want to choose to call them, that same basic melody most times kicks in to help process how the images work together:

"From the railway station came the sound of shunting trains, ringing, rumbling, softened almost into melody by the distance" (War of the Worlds)

Here a number of techniques are being used:

1) 3-part sequence: 1) ringing, 2) rumbling, 3) softened almost into melody (click, click, click: reader list-programming)
2) Repetition of voiceless fricatives (s, sh): sound, shunting, softened (helping to give a 'softened melody' on an audio level, that whispered: s, sh, s,)
3) -ing repetition: shunt-ing, ring-ing, rumbl-ing (also helping with the 'melody' on an auditory level)  
4) Close repetition of consonants: sound of shunting, ring/rumble... 
4) repetitive syllable counts: ring/ing, rum/bling, sof/ened al/most in/to... helping to create that soft tap-tap, tap-tap, tap-tap and all finished lovely with the visual suggestion of a 'melody', by use of the word melody.

Fragments work the same:  I looked at her. I looked at the switch again. At her. At the switch.

1) Close repetition of "I looked'
3, Repeated melody of at her, at the switch, at her, at the switch.

The fragments works because the information needed to understand them has already been provided (I looked), and the pattern of familiar repetition kicks in to help prepare the reader to process the images in a way that makes sense. That tennis-match of at her, at the switch, at her, at the switch.

How writers tap into that can help understand why linguists say: readers don't need spoon-feeding every explicit detail. They can follow multiple clues, mostly unconsciously at times.

 It's when the reader can't process the images that they get thrown out of the story and forced to focus on what's going on with the words. Rhythm and meaning is screwed up.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 23, 2016)

> The account of grammar presented in this book is descriptive, not prescriptive: it describes the language as it is used today.



The current state of prescriptive grammar is that it fails -- it is inadequate for current writers and so we don't follow it.

Descriptive grammar doesn't have that problem. In fact, it doesn't have _any _problems. If it's just describing, so _it's always right_!

The biggest problem is that it doesn't give any advice. I mean, if a comma is optional, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? That you can flip a coin? No, it means make a wise choice based on unnamed grammatical principles.

Another problem is that it doesn't have any way of saying something's wrong. Both Cadence and I wanted to say that Roth's use of a colon was simply wrong. (HERE)  I want to say this semicolon is wrong.



> She liked to run; and she liked to swim, but most of all she liked to bike.


----------



## Flint (Feb 24, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Fragments are wide-ranging, but no one adds words to them and categorizes them as independent clauses. That was my point -- adding words was an odd way to analyze grammar.
> 
> You can give up on grammatically analyzing those sentences, and Brown and Rollins in general. Or you can try to analyze them using traditional grammar, or trying to stretch or modify traditional grammar. If you give up -- you are taking the same route I am.
> 
> If you come up with explanations for those two sentences, but your explanations don't agree, and they don't seem to match Aquilo's for a different sentence, your creative explanations are multiplying and you are on the path I abandoned.



That's fair enough. If you don't find modern grammars useful, I would just use your own analyses.



EmmaSohan said:


> If you can handle this sentence, my guess is that you are saying about the same thing as me. (This is from my reading last night. She owns a bakery.)



This doesn't work for me although I can understand what the author is getting at. If it works for you (or anyone else), that's fair enough.



EmmaSohan said:


> The current state of prescriptive grammar is that it fails -- it is inadequate for current writers and so we don't follow it.
> 
> Descriptive grammar doesn't have that problem. In fact, it doesn't have _any _problems. If it's just describing, so _it's always right_!
> 
> ...



Punctuation doesn't really make an appearance in those modern grammars I linked (as far as I've seen). Right now I tend to follow New Hart's Rules and Larry Trask's website for style choices, including punctuation. I follow them for the same reasons I follow the Oxford Modern Grammar.

 If you find your system works better for your purposes, then I would just go with it, personally.


----------



## Aquilo (Feb 24, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> The current state of prescriptive grammar is that it fails -- it is inadequate for current writers and so we don't follow it.
> 
> Descriptive grammar doesn't have that problem. In fact, it doesn't have _any _problems. If it's just describing, so _it's always right_!



They're systems, with different approaches, but as a reader/writer/learner, you play both. Prescriptive grammar is one style of many, descriptive grammar teaches you that and says "Use the prescriptive rules if/when you need to." One can be used to find answers that are lacking in the other. 



> The biggest problem is that it doesn't give any advice. I mean, if a comma is optional, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? That you can flip a coin? No, it means make a wise choice based on unnamed grammatical principles.



They are named, in both prescriptive and descriptive terms. If you have a descriptive reference book says "contracted not negation (can't, won't) should not be used in academic writing", then a descriptive grammar will help balance that judgement by looking at academic texts and comparing negation use from them against fiction. It's your (generic your) appititude as a learner to make the connections between the two, then apply that to your work.  



> Another problem is that it doesn't have any way of saying something's wrong. Both Cadence and I wanted to say that Roth's use of a colon was simply wrong. (HERE)  I want to say this semicolon is wrong.



Where is that line of text taken from?

Would you say to ee cummings, who is well-known for using lowercase and no capitals at the start of his sentences, is wrong in his choice?

she being brand new

There's a point where you have to throw out what you know, and look at language in a creative way, one that works beyond the rules and regulations. And there you're shifting into author style, where like with descriptive grammar, you can't package it fully into standard usage -- because creativity itself shifts and reshapes itself: that's why it's creative language use. Otherwise all fiction would have one style: prescriptive, by the book.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 24, 2016)

Starting at the START! When people read a sentence, it goes into their brain. Then they understand it, or don't understand it, or something in-between like being bothered by part of it.

The question is this: What is in their brain doing this processing?

The simplest answer is that they have learned the grammar of their language and they process the grammar according to those rules.

The next question is, what are you going to do when this doesn't explain things? What happens, to give just one example, when they process "His lips moved, his tongue thick."

It's important: As writers, we want to know how our readers process the words in a sentence.


----------



## Aquilo (Feb 25, 2016)

Readers call on multiple processes, Emma.  It's not just down to learning the grammatical system's and patterns. It's down to what they've learned from the referential material around them in their daily lives and applying that to sequencing. 

Mention 'mouth', a reader automatically pictures lips, teeth, tongue: they're part of what makes up the whole. So the jump from "His lips moved," to "his tongue thick" plays on joining components that naturally branch off one another to help form the whole 'mouth'. The readers know this, then put the two familiar images together and read between the lines on meaning to either take it literally or figuratively. 

I can mention to you a whole: 'Radio'. You'll know that a Radio consists of parts: speakers, on/off switch, electric cable. You'll also process that I've mentioned Radio in particular, which can broadcast news, chats, interviews, live musics sessions etc. So by the time I mention:

The radio talks, speakers never listen. A deaf companion, blind to the lady who sits alone at the kitchen table.

There's two referential points: radio (radio, speakers) and somethings a human does0(talks, listens, offers companionship. Can be blind, deaf.... lonely) that are working together. The reader processes those two concepts together and works out the personification of the radio that's taking place. It doesn't have to consist of full sentences, so long as the relationship being built by the referential material (radio... things a human does) connects to what the reader knows about items and relationship in their daily lives.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 25, 2016)

Aquilo said:


> Readers call on multiple processes, Emma.  It's not just down to learning the grammatical system's and patterns. It's down to what they've learned from the referential material around them in their daily lives and applying that to sequencing.
> 
> Mention 'mouth', a reader automatically pictures lips, teeth, tongue: they're part of what makes up the whole. So the jump from "His lips moved," to "his tongue thick" plays on joining components that naturally branch off one another to help form the whole 'mouth'. The readers know this, then put the two familiar images together and read between the lines on meaning to either take it literally or figuratively.
> 
> ...



This is going to sound quite technical, but I can't resist the urge. There is also something being exchanged by osmosis about the woman; in fact, as a writer who is obsessed with psychological insight, this sort of writing is sublimatory because it projects something about the woman onto the impersonal radio. This is done, in my analysis, because it is often better to approach a character's thoughts and feelings from the oblique. This is why third-person narrative is so powerful; it's almost as though we have to be looking away from ourselves in order to truly see ourselves in our writing, otherwise the ego gets in the way.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 25, 2016)

Aquilo said:


> Readers call on multiple processes, Emma.  It's not just down to learning the grammatical system's and patterns. It's down to what they've learned from the referential material around them in their daily lives and applying that to sequencing.
> 
> Mention 'mouth', a reader automatically pictures lips, teeth, tongue: they're part of what makes up the whole. So the jump from "His lips moved," to "his tongue thick" plays on joining components that naturally branch off one another to help form the whole 'mouth'. The readers know this, then put the two familiar images together and read between the lines on meaning to either take it literally or figuratively.
> 
> ...



I think you are saying. That I can write phrases and the reader; puts them together, and there is no problem, no complaints? Are you sure. You want to say that? It seems. To me; to be too encompassing and to give permission, to sentences we might not like, so I think; you need more.


----------



## Aquilo (Feb 25, 2016)

Patrick said:


> This is going to sound quite technical, but I can't resist the urge. There is also something being exchanged by osmosis about the woman; in fact, as a writer who is obsessed with psychological insight, this sort of writing is sublimatory because it projects something about the woman onto the impersonal radio. This is done, in my analysis, because it is often better to approach a character's thoughts and feelings from the oblique. This is why third-person narrative is so powerful; it's almost as though we have to be looking away from ourselves in order to truly see ourselves in our writing, otherwise the ego gets in the way.



That's a fascinating insight, and... you now officially scare me, Patrick! (But in a good way  ). From my part as a writer. it's just easier to convey loneliness by going external. Now you say that, though, I wonder how much dissociation plays in this too? I'm a romance author, yet I'm not comfortable writing romance, so 'going external' when portraying character emotion becomes... easier.

But it certainly runs with the linguistic argument that readers shouldn't be spoon-fed every detail: they damn smart creatures, with an ability to help piece together information that extends beyond the words on the page, and should be treated as such.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 25, 2016)

Aquilo said:


> That's a fascinating insight, and... you now officially scare me, Patrick! (But in a good way  ). From my part as a writer. it's just easier to convey loneliness by going external. Now you say that, though, I wonder how much dissociation plays in this too? I'm a romance author, yet I'm not comfortable writing romance, so 'going external' when portraying character emotion becomes... easier.
> 
> But it certainly runs with the linguistic argument that readers shouldn't be spoon-fed every detail: they damn smart creatures, with an ability to help piece together information that extends beyond the words on the page, and should be treated as such.



That's absolutely it. The writer's really a doctor, and though a complex creature him/herself, the fascinatingly complex organism is really the reader. The magic is in the connections the mind makes. As the writer, you just have to know how the mind makes those connections.

This insight is the bedrock of my own narrative style; it's one that has grown over the years, and I am in a place now where (I know it sounds disgustingly pretentious) I feel there's a new artistic movement bubbling away under the surface. The projection of the internal onto the external becomes a feedback loop of the author's and character's otherwise-abstract thoughts and feelings. Realism is insufficient for artistic exploration because it denies the technique, but what if the objects of your writing can truly become a vessel of the character's most hidden aspect? Now that is a playground for the imagination. I suspect it probably won't be a new artistic movement (it's probably not even new), but just the maturation of a single author: me.

But then isn't that how we all feel? It engenders a child-like excitement in me, at the least.


----------



## Aquilo (Feb 25, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> I think you are saying. That I can write phrases and the reader; puts them together, and there is no problem, no complaints? Are you sure. You want to say that? It seems. To me; to be too encompassing and to give permission, to sentences we might not like, so I think; you need more.



Emma, who said anything about breaking a whole clause down into stops? You opened this discussion about supplementary material (participle phrases, fragments, intro clauses -- those which naturally can take a comma). Would you really write like that? Would anyone? And present that to reader, you would have multiple complaints in a review.


----------



## Aquilo (Feb 25, 2016)

Patrick said:


> That's absolutely it. The writer's really a doctor, and though a complex creature him/herself, the fascinatingly complex organism is really the reader. The magic is in the connections the mind makes. As the writer, you just have to know how the mind makes those connections.
> 
> This insight is the bedrock of my own narrative style; it's one that has grown over the years, and I am in a place now where (I know it sounds disgustingly pretentious) I feel there's a new artistic movement bubbling away under the surface. The projection of the internal onto the external becomes a feedback loop of the author's and character's otherwise-abstract thoughts and feelings. Realism is insufficient for artistic exploration because it denies the technique, but what if the objects of your writing can truly become a vessel of the character's most hidden aspect? Now that is a playground for the imagination. I suspect it probably won't be a new artistic movement (it's probably not even new), but just the maturation of a single author: me.
> 
> But then isn't that how we all feel? It engenders a child-like excitement in me, at the least.



It doesn't sound pretentious at all. I think you have to recognize your own style and be comfortable with that before you can look properly at how a reader thinks and enjoys the text, and that takes confidence. I think it's why I like psych thriller elements: a lot to do with maintaining theme and tension centers around how the main MC moves and lives in a story. Mention of a pen is never just mention of a pen; there's always some psychological foreshadowing taking place, and I love those kind of minute details that give more insight into the mind.


----------



## Patrick (Feb 25, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> I think you are saying. That I can write phrases and the reader; puts them together, and there is no problem, no complaints? Are you sure. You want to say that? It seems. To me; to be too encompassing and to give permission, to sentences we might not like, so I think; you need more.



You've missed the point; this kind of disregard for the reader's expectations prohibits the connections we want the reader to make. 

However, James Joyce was able to eliminate classical concerns for grammar and punctuation in his later works, but there was always an internal logic. Where he's streaming Molly's consciousness without any kind of sentence structure, we understand she's not as educated as Stephen or Leopold, and we get the raw product of her mind unfiltered by the author. But this is not chaotic writing. Your use of grammar here is just chaotic nonsense and isn't viable.


----------



## Flint (Feb 25, 2016)

Aquilo said:


> The radio talks, speakers never listen. A deaf companion, blind to the lady who sits alone at the kitchen table.



This is a very elegant construction for all sorts of reasons, IMO. Who wrote this?



Aquilo said:


> Emma, who said anything about breaking a whole clause down into stops? You opened this discussion about supplementary material (participle phrases, fragments, intro clauses -- those which naturally can take a comma). Would you really write like that? Would anyone? And present that to reader, you would have multiple complaints in a review.



I would have to agree. The above construction is very different to this one here, IMO:



> _I think you are saying. That I can write phrases and the reader; puts them together, and there is no problem, no complaints? Are you sure. You want to say that? It seems. To me; to be too encompassing and to give permission, to sentences we might not like, so I think; you need more._



--------

Also, readers' expectations aside, it still works on a modern grammatical level, for me:

'The radio talks, speakers never listen.' 

Here, two short independent/main clauses in a single sentence, which can be separated by a comma rather than a semi-colon because they are so short.

'A deaf companion, blind to the lady who sits alone at the kitchen table.'

Here, the verb BE is understood in both clauses – '[It is] a deaf companion, [being] blind to the lady who sits alone at the kitchen table.'

(eta: ooops and the pronoun referring back to the radio is also understood)

When you expand as above, you get the same construction as – 'His lips moved, his tongue [being] thick.' 

I.e. a single sentence consisting of a main/independent clause separated from a non-finite subordinate/dependent participle clause by a comma.

---------



> However, James Joyce was able to eliminate classical concerns for grammar and punctuation in his later works, but there was always an internal logic.



Yeah, no writer is under any obligation to follow any particular style if they write it well enough, IMO.


----------



## Aquilo (Feb 25, 2016)

Flint said:


> This is a very elegant construction for all sorts of reasons, IMO. Who wrote this?



It's one I put together to just to show how readers can process the leap between parts: Radio/speaker etc. *blushes* sorry!! 



> Also, readers' expectations aside, it still works on a modern grammatical level, for me:
> 
> 'The radio talks, speakers never listen.'
> 
> ...



Exactly. Writers omit certain elements all the time. E.g., you don't have to say: he went over to the fridge and pulled out out a beer before he sat in the living room. You can omit certain elements because a reader will process the steps themselves: he grabbed a Coke from the fridge, then let his ass kiss the couch.

Unless stated otherwise, the couch is in living room, so the reader can make the connection of moving from one room to another.


----------

