# The rules and regulations



## Olly Buckle (May 18, 2019)

Remember Donovan?
Is it a boy or is it a girl?
Takes all kinds to make our world go round
The army life ought to be a stipulation
A-that's the proper education
Twenty-five years probation
And give 'em a double 'elping of

The rules and regulations (sing it up boys!)
Rules and regulations
The rules and regulations.

Anyone who knows me well will know what a high regard I have for 'The rules of writing' and those eminent and educated individuals who pronounce them. I thought it might be good to provide a few examples so you can se how sensible they are.

It's, an abbreviation of 'It is' we have all seen confused with its, a word meaning belonging to which does not have a 'possessive' comma, that is the word.

Never confuse them again, follow the advice of James Buchanan in 'A regular English syntax'.
"It's for it is is vulgar; 'tis is used."


'Tis strange how some words change their meaning and 'drift' from the original without anyone noticing, but others are leapt on by grammar Nazis as 'wrong'. The word 'literally' has been used for emphasis ever since I can remember, as in 'My mum will literally go through the roof.' In fact I reckon its use in that sense is far more common than the 'literal' meaning, of 'exactly, in real life'.

Garland Greever and Easley Jones in 'Century handbook of writing' tell us 'Do not use it when you plainly do not mean it, as in the sentence 'I was literally tickled to death'.
Well, of course not , people would be most confused; are you dead or are you talking. 

Words change their meaning no matter how much pedants insist on 'The original meaning'; which their definition quite often isn't. Comprehension is the key.

I shall continue.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 18, 2019)

Responding to one of your examples, "literally" is a very useful word, w_hen it is used as an antonym for metaphorically_. We don't need it as an intensifier; we already have more of those than we need. When you use it as an intensifier, that creates ambiguity. Or just silliness. ("Haley suspects that if she doesn't end the call soon, her head will literally explode." Wicked, Padian.)

So. We have useful words. People misuse those words, out of ignorance or carelessness. If the misused meanings become definitions, our language usually suffers. That's because the original meaning was more precise, and the new meaning is more general and hence not needed.

To give another example, brackish is presumably a useful word, though I have never had occasion to use it. It can -- AND IS -- used in fiction, in ignorance, just to refer to dirty water. I guess because it has bric-a-brac in it it? Do we now call that an acceptable meaning? The problem isn't definitions changing, the problem is the loss to our language in power to communicate.

I can rant on if you want.


I have written entire books about breaking the traditional rules of grammar. But I always have the criteria of power and efficiency.

But I usually loathe the teaching of rules and regulations. I try to teach tools and power and understanding. Carry on!


----------



## Thomas Norman (May 18, 2019)

I look forward to reading more on this subject. My grammar is by no means good.

I would like to point out in regard to "it's" that we all use that form in speaking. Therefor I think I'm right in saying it is perfectly correct to use it in dialogue. We do not say 'tis.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 18, 2019)

Thomas Norman said:


> I would like to point out in regard to "it's" that we all use that form in speaking. Therefor I think I'm right in saying it is perfectly correct to use it in dialogue. We do not say 'tis.



Exactly, my point is that those who pontificate on such rules are not to be taken too seriously.

Oh Emma! I included that example because I was sure that someone would object  I don't know why 'literally' raises hackles so much, but it does. In fact your reply was quite mild compared to some I have seen accusing people of all sorts of mental deficiency. I disagree of course. In one sense it is being used literally, in the other figuratively, and my definition of the linguistically and mentally deficient would be those who can't tell the difference from the context. Having another meaning does not detract from the previous meaning, and very few words only have one meaning. For example, 'literally', the adverbial form of 'literal' which had as its earliest meaning 'relating to letters or the alphabet'. This is just one of the other meanings, it also is defined as 'word for word' for example.
"With his eyes he literally scoured the corners of the cell" Vladimir Nabokov, Invitation to a beheading.
Maybe it was picked up in translation?

Remember when Tom Sawyer got the other kids to pay him to let them paint the fence? Twain writes "Tom was literally rolling in wealth". No confusion in my mind, I didn't think he might be rotating with his golden alphabet around him 
That is about two hundred and fifty years it has been being used that way, longer for all I know, and I know people don't misunderstand, because so many of them jump on it as 'Wrong' when it is used that way, it's a bit like 'decimate'. Now there is another can of worms, does it mean 'to take a tithe from' or 'to destroy a large part of' ?


----------



## bazz cargo (May 18, 2019)

Words! My bete noire is punk-chew-ation. Just where do I stick a flying comma when it is a possessive plural? I can quite happily murder my grammar and strangle my sentence structure. Go figure...


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 18, 2019)

The teacher's cane; one teacher, one cane.

Those teachers' canes. Lots of teachers lots of canes.

Think of it as the plural with a possessive added, teachers's, but as the extra 's' is not pronounced it is not written.

Now bend over!


----------



## bazz cargo (May 18, 2019)

Kinky old git. You haven't even wined and dined me. 





Olly Buckle said:


> The teacher's cane; one teacher, one cane.
> 
> Those teachers' canes. Lots of teachers lots of canes.
> 
> ...


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 18, 2019)

How did I get stuck defending the rules and regulations? I want to be attacking them too.



Olly Buckle said:


> "With his eyes he literally scoured the corners of the cell" Vladimir Nabokov, Invitation to a beheading.
> Maybe it was picked up in translation?



I suspect very funny translator error? I am laughing. What could the translator mean by "literally scour"? I suspect the translator had no idea scour was different words.

More soberly, _scour _(dictionary definition: to search rapidly, common meaning to search thoroughly) is misunderstood so often that it can't be used to communicate any more. Another word lost. We cannot know from this what Tolstoy meant.

Anyway, intensifier should mean to intensify. I can't think of _literally _being used in that way. His nose was literally large? I have never seen that.

As for using context, I am VERY happy with that -- in the context of a metaphorical, it means that it's not to be taken figuratively. So "she is afraid her head will literally explode" doesn't mean an intensified explosion, she means that we should not take this figuratively.

It also seems to have a meaning "and I am not exaggerating." _I am literally furious with you_ means I would usually exaggerate but now I am not. That's the literal truth implies that many things the speaker says are not true.


----------



## luckyscars (May 18, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> Responding to one of your examples, "literally" is a very useful word, w_hen it is used as an antonym for metaphorically_. We don't need it as an intensifier; we already have more of those than we need. When you use it as an intensifier, that creates ambiguity. Or just silliness. ("Haley suspects that if she doesn't end the call soon, her head will literally explode." Wicked, Padian.)
> 
> So. We have useful words. People misuse those words, out of ignorance or carelessness. If the misused meanings become definitions, our language usually suffers. That's because the original meaning was more precise, and the new meaning is more general and hence not needed.
> 
> ...



I use 'literally' as an intensifier in casual conversation (and therefore casual dialogue) because I can. 

I don't need to justify my choice of words to anybody. I don't need to be told I don't need to use 'literally' because I could say 'absolutely' and pass the purity test. As an adult, I will use the word that I want to use and take the consequences.

And about those consequences: If somebody wants to call me ignorant or careless for saying "it's literally the worst thing in the world" in a casual or ironic context then I COULD CARE LESS (another malapropism that gets people triggered) because, quite frankly, the kinds of people who get endlessly irate about occasional flaws in language *ARE THE KIND OF PEOPLE I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO ANYWAY!* 

Don't get me wrong. Improper language that leads to misunderstanding or lack of credibility (I would not use incorrect grammar in a courtroom, for instance) is always bad, bad. But I don't believe there is a person alive with a functioning brain who, when I say "my mom's head will literally explode' does not recognize I mean it as an intensifier. Therefore their objections are nothing more than elective outrage and those people may kindly Smell My Ass.

P.S I have never heard anybody use 'brackish' to describe dirty water. Brackish water is a mix of fresh and salt water.


----------



## Dluuni (May 18, 2019)

I am irked by clumsy language use because it destroys words that I need.
If I say "It is literally on fire", I need you to grab a fire extinguisher. 

See also "triggered", a very specific medical term.
I am triggered by something involving bars and alcohol.
I don't have a moral objection to alcohol, I am happy to see my friends off for a night on the town, I am not upset by or displeased with alcohol. I know people who sell alcohol. It's a great career, I'm happy for them. 
I do, however, sometimes experience my blood pressure and heart rate skyrocketing, hyperventilating, tingling, and a sudden surge of adrenaline and activation of my fight/flight/freeze reflex in the presence of people drinking alcohol. _I don't know why._ I need to be able to explain what is going on without someone thinking I am going on a moral rampage, because I'm not.
As a result, people misusing the term are frustrating to no end. Because there's a word for that, and people are using it as yet another slang word to mean things that they have words for.

Then, I have been hammered with constant insults about "Why do you keep coming up with new words for things?" Because you keep destroying our words!


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 18, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I use 'literally' as an intensifier in casual conversation (and therefore casual dialogue) because I can.



I do not like this rule! When people consistently misuse a word, its meaning gets lost and we can't communicate as well. I want to give up on some words, sure, but not not _literally_.

A look at Wikipedia suggests that "literally" is not an intensifier. From my perspective, it doesn't intensify. This apparently is another example of our conflict: I don't like you using "intensifier" that way.



luckyscars said:


> If somebody wants to call me ignorant or careless for saying "it's literally the worst thing in the world"...



That's easily explained as proper usage. If you would normal say that something was the worst thing in the world and not mean it as actually true (say it's an exaggeration or hyperbole), then "literally" suggests that in this case you mean exactly what you say. That's well within the classic meaning.

If you want to say "He has a literally large nose" I will grant you its use as an intensifier.

I think Ollie is right to emphasize context, the problem occurs in when literally is misused on the context of a metaphorical. "Missing that concert was literally the end of the world."



luckyscars said:


> P.S I have never heard anybody use 'brackish' to describe dirty water. Brackish water is a mix of fresh and salt water.



I have read that at least once in a published book. Would it bother you to read brackish used to describe dirty water? Would it bother you that readers will read this and think it means dirty water and probably learn the wrong meaning? And then they use it, and the wrong meaning literally snowballs?


----------



## luckyscars (May 18, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I do not like this rule! When people consistently misuse a word, its meaning gets lost and we can't communicate as well. I want to give up on some words, sure, but not not _literally_.
> 
> A look at Wikipedia suggests that "literally" is not an intensifier. From my perspective, it doesn't intensify. This apparently is another example of our conflict: I don't like you using "intensifier" that way.



The great thing about language is it doesn't matter if you don't like how I use a word, or vice versa. 

There's no such thing as 'incorrect' in language. I'll know you'll say there is and send wikipedia links or whatever, and it's true we do tend to talk in such terms, primarily as a shorthand - e.g we would say it is correct to spell it 'celery' and it is incorrect to spell it 'celary'. But, when we talk about 'correct' or 'incorrect' use of words we really mean either 'incoherent' or 'intolerable' - or both, don't we?

You may find my incorrect usage of literally to be _intolerable,_ but I don't believe you find it _incoherent_. You understand what I am saying. Therefore whether or not I should use it in your company will depend 100% on whether I care about using a word you find intolerable - annoying you - transgressing your tolerance - right?

In most casual contexts, as explained, I do not care. Not about transgressing the patience of the language purists on that sort of pedantic level. Such people annoy me. Sometimes I like to poke them.

 I also don't agree it 'loses meaning'. Not as long as there are people like yourself, why would it? Your argument that the meaning gets lost assumes words can't have multiple meanings and plainly they can. The word 'set' has something like fifty different definitions. So by your logic are any of those definitions 'lost' because of the other 49+ that are plainly used? 



EmmaSohan said:


> I have read that at least once in a published book. Would it bother you to read brackish used to describe dirty water? Would it bother you that readers will read this and think it means dirty water and probably learn the wrong meaning? And then they use it, and the wrong meaning literally snowballs?



None of those things would bother me. Those 'readers' would need to learn to cross-check sources. Whenever I encounter an unfamiliar or questionable word in a book 9/10 I look it up in the dictionary, certainly I would do that before I would use it myself. And if I found myself in a world where 'brackish' was now commonly understood to ALSO mean 'dirty water' I fail to see how that would suddenly mean it COULDN'T also describe half-salty water. Context would dictate the difference and if it did not then linguistic Darwinism would correct. As it has always.

I enjoy the irony of 'literally snowballs'. Was that intentional?


----------



## luckyscars (May 18, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> I am irked by clumsy language use because it destroys words that I need.



On what grounds? Even if we accept it is 'clumsy' (a value judgment unwarranted) how does duality of meaning _destroy words_? Does it routinely confuse you if I write 'hehehe' in a speech bubble to represent onomatopoeic laughter because 'he' is also a male pronoun? Does it bamboozle you when people playing poker in an otherwise empty building mention having a 'full house'? If a pool player doubles over, screaming about getting kicked in the balls, I assume you would know which 'balls' he means?

Because to say 'he's literally on fire' talking about a boxer who just won his 10th fight in a row is obviously referring to his form. It's therefore only incorrect (or 'clumsy') to say 'he's literally on fire' in a context where it could be unclear whether somebody is or is not burning to death - where there is a potential for reasonable uncertainty or lack of clarity. Which of course there seldom is in general parlance. If it is not unclear, it's fine (or at least not objectionable) to use the language however way one feels, isn't it?

Common sense, people.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 18, 2019)

People really get upset about what part of speech a word is.

From various books with titles like 'Manual of good English' and 'Errors in English'

'Leave, a verb commonly left without an object; 'I shall leave'; leave what?'

'Like, like is never a conjunction'

'Loan is not a noun but a verb'

'Experience is a substantive, _not a verb at all_'

'Fine, not an adverb, do not use as one, as in, 'How are you?', 'I'm fine'.

'Dress is a verb, the noun it is often confused with is properly a 'gown'. '

'Author, a noun, never a verb, never say they 'Authored' a book'.

'Notice is never a verb, the form is 'Take notice'. '

'Revolt is not a transitive verb, 'this revolts me' should be 'This is revolting to me'. '


----------



## Megan Pearson (May 19, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Anyone who knows me well will know what a high regard I have for 'The rules of writing' and those eminent and educated individuals who pronounce them. I thought it might be good to provide a few examples so you can see how sensible they are.



Deftly avoiding the '_it__, its, it's, it is_' argument here... I had a curious conversation with an English major once that went rather like this: 

Me:                 Have you read Cormac McCarthy's _All the Pretty Horses_?
English Major:  Of course! 
Me:                 I thought it was a rather creative piece of writing. What about you?
English Major:  McCarthy, creative? He broke every rule on writing ever written! How can you call that _creative_!
Me:                 *Gulp.* [Stealthy retreat from conversation.]

Rules are sensible, yes, and they need to be followed, but having been blindsided once on the topic (it was a much more _emphatic_ appeal to his inability as a writer than I've provided here), I realized I really did like what he wrote and decided I needed to have a better answer should I ever innocently try to engage in some similar conversation again on writers who cast off the moorings of fine, grammatically correct writing (like I've done here in this very long sentence--which is not by any means an example of fine writing but of _rambling_). There is a point at which grammar is art, and there is a point at which the bending of grammar is art. It's a fine line to cross, one that can result in trash just as easily as art. We might say here there is a point at which it departs sensibility and simply reflects ignorance. Nevertheless, poetry seems to encompass this idea best. If poetry were as confined to grammatical rules & conventions as were, say, journalism, then we'd have no call for poetry at all. Therefore, does the prose writer who abandons grammatical convention really rather enter into more of a poetic conceptualization with their writing? 

I don't know. 


And Olly, by all means, please continue...


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 19, 2019)

> English Major: McCarthy, creative? He broke every rule on writing ever written! How can you call that creative!



Whether you consider that a 'Good Thing' or a 'Bad Thing', as 1066 and all that would put it, depends on your point of view I suppose, but surely even the most hidebound writer must recognise it is a creative thing; it would be blindly sticking to the rules that would be uncreative.


----------



## Earp (May 19, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> People really get upset about what part of speech a word is.
> 
> From various books with titles like 'Manual of good English' and 'Errors in English'
> 
> ...



I'll give you 'loan' and 'dress', I guess, but if you insist on using cliché as an adjective, we _will_ fight.


----------



## bdcharles (May 19, 2019)

This is why I wrote my post on rhetoric in fiction, the point of that being that breaking the rules on grammar, logic, semantics, and so forth, could be allowable if it has an effect. Take "literally". It really, honestly doesn't bother me that people use it in a literally (!) incorrect way - and I say that as the most irksome sort of grammar prescriptivist under the hood. The fact remains that it is an effective modifier today. I am fairly sure that its users, when pressed, would know that it doesn't mean what they use it for, but so what? Neither does the word "chair" (as I understand it originally denoting a particular co-ordinating task, as in chairman, and sharing a heritage with the greeting "cheers"). It drives its point home and that's where its power lies.

But on the flipside it's tempting to let slide a grasp of the rules at all, if one can superficially claim to be doing it in the name of art and drama and creating an impact. To me this is lazy and tends to result in very mediocre, generic content. I think one has to legitimately get to a point of feeling constrained by the rules, and to do that you need to know them and work within them til you can do hoops with them. 

Once you get to that point, it's like a carte blanche imo. You've earned the right to go transgressing over the rules.


----------



## Dluuni (May 19, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Even if we accept it is 'clumsy' (a value judgment unwarranted) how does duality of meaning _destroy words_?
> Because to say 'he's literally on fire' talking about a boxer who just won his 10th fight in a row is obviously referring to his form. It's therefore only incorrect (or 'clumsy') to say 'he's literally on fire' in a context where it could be unclear whether somebody is or is not burning to death - where there is a potential for reasonable uncertainty or lack of clarity.


Except that the word "literally" is meant to signify an override, 'No, somebody actually poured gasoline on him and lit him on fire, which was unexpected'.
"Triggered" is being used for "distaste, annoyance" so often now that if I say that I am triggered by bars, people—including some psychiatric types—assume that I'm annoyed by them, and using very political language for it. No, I meant exactly what I said, I have nothing against them but for my health, I can't go into one. Something about them is basically an allergy for my brain. The improper usage has made it much more difficult to communicate. 

Of course, then I can say "No, I am literally triggered", but people might assume that I am, rather than the actual definition of the words, expressing more anger.


----------



## Aquilo (May 19, 2019)

I'd just like to know when writing became so.... literal.

 I'd love to see those against the use of 'literal' argue it out with Shakespeare, who's the master of figurative language. You can't 'literally' burn daylight, but it works. He takes a normal paradigm: burn paper, and turns what a reader knows about burning paper (eaten quickly by flames) and shifts it into an abnormal paradigm over eating through time: we burn daylight. So the saying: "he's literally on fire tonight..." most will know it's figurative and being playful. Readers aren't stupid.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 19, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> People really get upset about what part of speech a word is'



There can be a point to that too. We should have a good way of describing our language. The word "then" is often used EXACTLY like a coordinating conjunction:



> I picked up the book, then I threw it in the fire.



I don't think there is any definition of coordinating conjunction that usage doesn't fit. Except if you define coordinating conjunctions by listing them, which people do, and _then_ isn't on the list.

I do note with pleasure that with the current definition, the above is a comma splice. It's hard to believe the comma-splice dislikers would notice. (story here) With sensible rules, it's actually not a comma splice.

The word "plus" is the same, and I have seen one dictionary's example use it as a coordinating conjunction. To me, the use of _plus _instead of _and_, even as a coordinating conjunction, is very useful.

So, to reiterate a theme, we can understand our language better by acknowledging the use of _then _as a coordinating conjunction. So there's a reason to care about the issue; it's the exact opposite of careless rule breaking. That is actually likely to happen, so this is the exact opposite of a hopeless cause.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 19, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Remember when Tom Sawyer got the other kids to pay him to let them paint the fence? Twain writes "Tom was literally rolling in wealth". No confusion in my mind.



Without reading the book, what does it mean?

Another author said the same thing about this same sentence. "Chances are you understand exactly what he means."

Chances are no one does -- I can't imagine anyone guessing correctly out of context, even though you both seem to think it makes perfect sense.

And why couldn't it be taken literally? That makes more sense in context. Calling it an intensifier makes no sense to me.

This is an unusual example. The usual problem with ambiguity is that it takes the reader more work to understand. Don't we want easy reading?


----------



## luckyscars (May 19, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> This is an unusual example. The usual problem with ambiguity is that it takes the reader more work to understand. Don't we want easy reading?



If easy writing was the yardstick for good writing then James Joyce would not still be in print.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 20, 2019)

Wow, you never read Tom Sawyer? Mind, Huckleberry Finn is better, but they are both worth reading.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 21, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> There can be a point to that too. We should have a good way of describing our language. The word "then" is often used EXACTLY like a coordinating conjunction:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



'Bald' is a good example, an adjective not a verb. For an old man I still have a reasonable amount of hair, but I am becoming bald. I think it is reasonably acceptable nowadays to say someone in my position is 'Balding', but when it was first used it met a tirade of abuse because, 'Bald is not a verb, so there could be no such word.
Ignoring the fact that to bald is a verb, albeit a not much used one, it is also perfectly obvious that 'balding' is a word, people say 'I am balding' and other people understood what they mean by it. To me that makes it a word and denying it is one is like standing on a railway track and denying that is a train coming at you because it isn't due for another half hour, that it defies the timetable does not mean it does not exist. In the same way a word that defies what some grammarian understands to be a 'correct' conjugation because it is not a verb does not cease to be a word for that. One person says it or writes it, another hears or reads and understands what is meant. It is as much a word as the train is a train, there is no point in denying its existence because they are always on time or late on this line, one needs to accept the physical reality and step aside. There is no point in denying a word because it is 'wrong', one needs to work with the reality of how the language is used.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 22, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> 'Bald' is a good example...



Contrast it to someone declaring a word's usage is wrong with complete confidence about what is correct. In some contexts -- such as a parent correcting a child ("That's a dog, not a cat") or a teacher correcting a student's spelling -- that sounds good, right? And at the other end, it's literally difficult for me to believe someone criticized "balding."

Did you know that the definition of kilogram changed just this monday?


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 23, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> Contrast it to someone declaring a word's usage is wrong with complete confidence about what is correct. In some contexts -- such as a parent correcting a child ("That's a dog, not a cat") or a teacher correcting a student's spelling -- that sounds good, right? And at the other end, it's literally difficult for me to believe someone criticized "balding."
> 
> Did you know that the definition of kilogram changed just this monday?


It literally happened, Bernstein, 1965, 'The careful writer' "There is no need for such a world, why not 'baldish? '. Isaac Asimov described it as 'Distasteful but necessary.' and Katherine Anne Porter as ''Entirely vulgar'

The same sort of thing happened over 'stupider' and 'stupidest', but they have become fairly acceptable. On the other hand although I might be wickeder, or even the wickedest, I can not be righteouser or the righteousest. Even if I reform I can only be more righteous or the most righteous, unless people startbending those rules again  

PS. So they finally realised that bar of uranium in Paris changes every time they get it out. It amuses me that the 'age of reason' produces a 'rational' system of measurement and then when it proves to not be quite right they cling to it just like the originals. I wonder if they will ever adjust meters?


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 26, 2019)

> So, to reiterate a theme, we can understand our language better by acknowledging the use of then as a coordinating conjunction. So there's a reason to care about the issue; it's the exact opposite of careless rule breaking. That is actually likely to happen, so this is the exact opposite of a hopeless cause



Sorry Emma, but I can't resist, doesn't 'exact opposite' break the rules? Isn't 'Opposite' one of those absolutes that it is wrong to qualify?


----------



## luckyscars (May 26, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Isn't 'Opposite' one of those absolutes that it is wrong to qualify?



No, because the root word of opposite means 'to set against' (as in 'opposition') and sometimes one can find things 'set against' them in different ways and to different degrees of magnitude while all are still 'opposing'. 

For example, a firefighter is probably the 'exact opposite' of somebody who goes around setting people's houses on fire - they literally do the exact reverse of what the arsonist does - but arguably a detective whose job it is is to stop arsonists is also 'the opposite thing to an arsonist', as is the contractor who rebuilds burned down houses. 

There is a need to qualify the magnitude of 'opposite of an arsonist' in that example, because it is unclear and could mean different things depending on how you look at it. But I reckon only the firefighter probably meets the definition of EXACT opposite.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 26, 2019)

Admittedly the detective 'opposes' the arsonist, but surely he is only 'the opposite' of him in that he does not set fires? After all 'opposite' won't take qualifying endings like 'oppositer' or 'oppositest'. There is also an issue with differentiating between people and what they do, what the builder does is the opposite of what the arsonist does, but they are both men and very similar (unless one is a woman).

Which words should be included in that list of absolutes is another can of worms ruling. One of the nineteenth century grammarians lists hundreds of them. Do we include things like over and under, or above and below? He would have, but I can hear 'almost under' and 'High above' quite happily. The rule that appeals to me is that of the other nineteenth century grammarian W.H.Maxwell, talking about whether to put more or most before or -er or -est after he says, 'There is, however, no general rule for comparing such adjectives,. The ear is the best guide.' Trouble is some have a 'better' ear than others and some have English ears whilst others have American or Australian ears; what sounds right in a Jamaican accent might not sound right in mine


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 26, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Sorry Emma, but I can't resist, doesn't 'exact opposite' break the rules? Isn't 'Opposite' one of those absolutes that it is wrong to qualify?



Very funny! I had just been complaining about "This is literally the opposite." That did sensitize me to the problem of warning the reader when I mean what I say. Or I was just being dramatic. And perhaps hypocritical. It was certainly a poor choice for this discussion!


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 29, 2019)

That's when you mean what you say, how about when you say what you mean?  


If words are nouns, adjectives etc. seems to be important to some, as I said, they can get very upset when a noun gets turned into a verb for example, "I aim to optimize responses by incentivising readers", that is bad enough to cause a little weep, but it won't get me weeping.

How come 'optimize' and 'incentivise' look horrid, but weep and weeping don't. You have to play it by ear, rules won't work. Actually spell check passes all of them, so maybe it is just my ear is out of date.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 30, 2019)

Then there is meaning, in my ancient copy of 'Plain words', there is a list of such noun to verb words. It was reckoned thet the conversion of hospital to hospitalise would not last long. As the need for hospitals dropped and they became more specialized fewer old buildings would be converted into hospitals and the word would drop out of use was the reckoning, they didn't reckon with the word changing its meaning in such an outrageous way. They thought if you added -ize it would automatically mean 'make into', like cubicalize, a very useful word, bound for a long future as more and more large areas were turned into offices, open plan did not exist, now that gets a red line! The predictions really give the lie to the rule makers, what seemed an outrageous breach fifty or a hundred years ago is often normal now.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 31, 2019)

Thinking about 'hospitalise' I remembered a conversation I had with a friend who was a member of the Windsor chapter. He was telling me about a motorist who chased and threatened him. He did not say he 'hospitalised' him, he 'Put him in hospital for a week'. Good grammar and justice for someone who threatened an old man who had recently had a liver transplant, I do like 'Angels'.

There are no grammatical errors.
'Grammatical errors' do not exist in either descriptive or prescriptive grammar. Descriptive grammar looks at the way the language is actually used and describes what is happening, so, for example, a double negative is seen as a way of emphasising the negative quality of what is said. It is not an 'error', it is intended and not 'bad grammar', but a different grammar. Prescriptive grammar, which imposes a set of rules usually based on Latin, will not admit the concept 'Grammatical error' because it says it is an oxymoron; something is either grammatical or an error. Prescriptive grammarians use the phrase 'An error in grammar' to describe the situation.
There are no grammatical errors.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 31, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> 'Grammatical errors' do not exist in either descriptive or prescriptive grammar.



Errors occur in the traditional prescriptive grammar. I mean, there are rules, and breaking the rules is an error. Thats the point. I would be surprised to find a book that didn't break at least one rule on the first page.

Descriptivism starts with sorting out appropriate usage from mistakes. No one cares about the usage of grade schoolers. That is precisely my complaint with dictionaries that focus only on usage.

I'm a functionalists for punctuation and grammar. (And, you might have noticed, for word meanings.) What does it accomplish? So people make mistakes. Big, small, matter of opinion usually, but sometimes not. Call them errors, mistakes, or suboptimal choices, I don't care. I am comfortable calling things mistakes, though I will be careful before doing that.



> He knew where he was going; few better.(Stephen King, Revival,page 62)


I can't find any elegant way to rewrite that, but that can't be right.



> I didn't want to take the elevator because taking the elevator is aLast Days kind of activity at Support Group, so I took the stairs.(The Fault in Our Stars,Green)


You can't tell without context, but that needs a comma after _because_. (Even though the normal prescriptive rules say no comma.)


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 31, 2019)

> Errors occur in the traditional prescriptive grammar.


Yes, Emma. I said, there could be an error in grammar, but not a grammatical error; if it is an error it is not grammatical; if it is grammatical it can not be an error in the grammatical sense. I suppose it might be factually incorrect and grammatically correct, that could be a grammatical error; but I was talking about language, not facts.


----------



## Theglasshouse (May 31, 2019)

I went looking for a book made for people who are coping with disabilities. I'd like to think I came to a close match for what I didn't think anything would be as good to use. Special education books tend to be expensive. They are usually written for teachers. The book I will mention is for those coping with their dsylexia. The website I have visited before caters for those with learning disabilities. 

Personally I think disabled people or with difficulty with grammar need a specific book tailored to their difficulties.

I own many grammar books, but a syntax based approach is best. I seem to think a book on grammar cannot be appropriate for me unless it is written for special needs. Which is another term for disability.

I could be wrong and that is why I posted here. Scaffolding means so by step you learn something usually with prior knowledge. It's an educational term.

If anyone wants to recommend something not made for dyslexic people they can.

http://www.ldonline.org/article/65326/

From talking to writing is the book I am talking about. There is an excerpt in the above link.

Grammar books I have owned haven't helped me. The good thing about this book is that it creates a list of word order to use in sentences. That's where it differs from grammar books that are usually written. If course I hope it solves my problems which is why I plan on ordering it. I have an assistive technology software that won't be here. It's the one by the company I mentioned. My computer is somewhere overseas. I decided to share this since it is a thread about grammar. This one specifically helps with description and narration. (One of the few ever on written expression for dyslexia according to a Delaware professor who reviewed it.)


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 2, 2019)

That/which

Should you use that or which at the beginning of a subordinate clause, or non-restrictive clause.

"It was the bike (that/which had the fixed wheel) put me off riding" take out the bit in brackets and it still makes sense, making it restrictive, or subordinate, depends which grammar book you read.

Simple, don't use either, "It was the bike with the fixed wheel put me off riding." or, even simpler, "It was the fixed wheel bike put me off riding."

Not only good if you ain't sure of the rules, also good when different people give different rules   Circumvent 'em.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 2, 2019)

"Where are you from?"
"Ending a sentence with a preposition? That is the sort of rule breaking up with which I will not put."
"Okay, where are you from, arsehole."

Variation on an old joke.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 2, 2019)

what is the difference between “rules” and “regulations” anyway? Is is not tautologous to say “rules and regulations” ?


----------



## ppsage (Jun 3, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> what is the difference between “rules” and “regulations” anyway? Is is not tautologous to say “rules and regulations” ?


I'm going to opine that regulations are a subset of rules differentiated by how they came into being: regulations having come from some sort of official source? If this is the case then it is a single set and "regulations" is redundant.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 3, 2019)

ppsage said:


> I'm going to opine that regulations are a subset of rules differentiated by how they came into being: regulations having come from some sort of official source? If this is the case then it is a single set and "regulations" is redundant.



Right, so it would be either tautologous or factually incorrect to speak of 'rules and regulations', as any body that is capable of issuing 'regulations' would not also be issuing 'rules' concurrently...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 3, 2019)

Also, it was a Donovan song, not a Dylan song. The overall sentiment the is better than the writing, 'stipulation' seems more for rhyme than reason.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 3, 2019)

Today I was considering attacks on so-called filter words. (For example, "I *see* his relief.") Obviously, they can be misused. So they get attacked, I guess, and people end up giving advice.

Or, as near as I can tell, some people are bothered by some comma splices. So they say they don't like comma splices. But they never notice the ones they don't mind. Surely some authors overuse adverbs. Or probably anything. So this seems to be a general issue.

I will add, I think there are cues when someone is over-reacting to misuse. One is that the advice gets pared down to just doing _less _of whatever. That's pretty meaningless: When would you stop taking this advice? The second is restricting the criticism to whatever's use when it's wrong. That advice applies to everything.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 4, 2019)

> Or, as near as I can tell, some people are bothered by some comma splices. So they say they don't like comma splices. But they never notice the ones they don't mind. Surely some authors overuse adverbs. Or probably anything. So this seems to be a general issue.



Starting a sentence with 'And' is something most people do from time to time and feel is alright; it is also something that most people can remember being told off for at some time. The grammatical explanations for not doing it are dubious to say the least, it has a long history of use by plenty of eminent writers, and has even been recommended as giving 'strength' to the start of the sentence. The only truly valid explanation for discouraging it that I have come across is that of teachers who say that children who use it will then often use it for _every_ sentence in a story they are writing, it becomes an expression of excitement.
There is a bit in the Hemingway story 'After the storm' where the effects of the storm are listed by a character who uses 'and' after each thing in the list, instead of commas, which gets this feeling of inevitable events unfolding in rapid succession beautifully. Getting carried away is one thing; thought about and doing 'wrong' stuff deliberately is very much another.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 4, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Starting a sentence with 'And' is something most people do from time to time and feel is alright; it is also something that most people can remember being told off for at some time. The grammatical explanations for not doing it are dubious to say the least, it has a long history of use by plenty of eminent writers, and has even been recommended as giving 'strength' to the start of the sentence. The only truly valid explanation for discouraging it that I have come across is that of teachers who say that children who use it will then often use it for _every_ sentence in a story they are writing, it becomes an expression of excitement.
> There is a bit in the Hemingway story 'After the storm' where the effects of the storm are listed by a character who uses 'and' after each thing in the list, instead of commas, which gets this feeling of inevitable events unfolding in rapid succession beautifully. Getting carried away is one thing; thought about and doing 'wrong' stuff deliberately is very much another.



I start sentences with conjunctions quite often. I think its one of those rules that has generally faded into indifference outside of the classroom, however I do agree with the concern of misuse. These days I always check to see if the sentence sounds the same/better without the conjunction at the start and if it does I delete it as I would any other superfluous word.

As far as the Hemingway example of 'and' instead of commas - I find it creates a nice conversational feel. Usually in spoken context we will use 'and' liberally to link so its perfect for establishing a casual, almost childlike melody to a narrative.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 4, 2019)

Starting a sentence with a conjunction creates the sort of impact one would generally only be seeking in fiction. That's the deal with most of these grammar rules.....they weren't really designed with fiction writing in mind. Or poetry, where they're just laughable.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 4, 2019)

Actually I think the deal with most of these grammar rules is that they were invented in the 1800's by grammarians wishing to aggrandise themselves and sell books of instruction. They also thought it would be a good idea to 'stabilise' the language, they didn't realise that all living languages are in constant flux. The ones that were written earlier were often based on Latin, the language of 'learning', and a dead language with a fixed set of rules. Unfortunately they don't work well in conjunction with Germanic languages, like English.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 4, 2019)

I think the grammar experts might have had a problem. _However _seems to be an adverb. So how could _but _be a conjunction?



> *However*, that's not how it works.
> *But *that's not how it works.



It was a bad idea and didn't work. But I can be sympathetic to hope. If you look at my three April Fools posts on grammar, they always end with something like "the issue of how to represent a dramatic pause was referred back to committee." It kind of is a problem; I wish there was some way of solving it. Eventually something should catch on.

Or, there is a serious problem of when you are in italics and want to italicize something within that. It's probably just wishful thinking to assume unitalicizing works. (It doesn't work on me, and I collect examples where it's ambiguous). King tried using small caps in _Misery_. It was a good idea, but it didn't catch on. (Hmm, maybe underlining would work.)


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 4, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Actually I think the deal with most of these grammar rules is that they were invented in the 1800's by grammarians wishing to aggrandise themselves and sell books of instruction. They also thought it would be a good idea to 'stabilise' the language, they didn't realise that all living languages are in constant flux. The ones that were written earlier were often based on Latin, the language of 'learning', and a dead language with a fixed set of rules. Unfortunately they don't work well in conjunction with Germanic languages, like English.



I don't think its so much they didn't realize it but more that there were some very real problems with basic comprehensibility occurring. Up until that point English had existed with such lawlessness strong regional dialects often lack mutual intelligibility. 

There's a story about King Charles I (I believe) who received a letter written in English from one of his subjects in far-northern England and it had to be translated into French because the English King, who was born and raised in England, was far more able to understand French than he was a regional version of his own language.

Point is that I think the idea of standardization was a net positive and inevitable in any case, since you can hardly run a functioning modern nation in a country where there is no lingua franca. But of course a lot of these 'rules and regulations' are pretty irrelevant, especially nowadays.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 5, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I don't think its so much they didn't realize it but more that there were some very real problems with basic comprehensibility occurring. Up until that point English had existed with such lawlessness strong regional dialects often lack mutual intelligibility.
> 
> There's a story about King Charles I (I believe) who received a letter written in English from one of his subjects in far-northern England and it had to be translated into French because the English King, who was born and raised in England, was far more able to understand French than he was a regional version of his own language.
> 
> Point is that I think the idea of standardization was a net positive and inevitable in any case, since you can hardly run a functioning modern nation in a country where there is no lingua franca. But of course a lot of these 'rules and regulations' are pretty irrelevant, especially nowadays.



Strong regional dialects were the province of the working classes, who were mainly illiterate in the 1800's. The literate, educated classes spoke received English no matter where they came from. The breakdown of strong dialects came later during the first world war when regional regiments were decimated and the fragments united. The process was accelerated by the death of so many young junior officers that the new middle classes were promoted into the officer ranks, previously the preserve of the upper classes, and by the coming of the BBC radio and BBC English. Amongst those who were running the country there was a common language, received English, with a common grammar, but the rules of grammar appealed to a Victorian sense of order. There was not grammatical lawlessness, but they wanted something like spelling books to sit down and learn rules from. Same sort of thing with actual handwriting, children had 'copy books' with an ideal example at the top of the page and then half a dozen lines below to copy it as near as possible, no individualism. This was about the same time uniforms came into vogue. The illiterate masses who spoke dialect with various grammatical peculiarities counted for nothing but a pool of labour and ordinary soldiers.
Charles the first you are going back to the first part of the 1600's, that's a long time.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 5, 2019)

But Charles I was still kind of Scottish wasn't he? Born there I'd think. So maybe no problem with northern dialects. Which probably wouldn't be written anyway. They chopped his head off for some reason; not to do with grammar most likely. ....... What I had in mind for fiction vs non-fiction are the journalistic and academic style guides like _Shrunk_ or _Chicago_, et al, which are often referenced here even though they're maybe not especially pertinent. That's a spot where you'd expect to find the _don't start with a conjunction_ and _don't end with a preposition_ kind of deal, as well as considerable punctuation regulation, tailored to the requirements of certain professions.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 22, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> P.S I have never heard anybody use 'brackish' to describe dirty water. Brackish water is a mix of fresh and salt water.





> My mother's core was rotten like the brackish water at the bottom of a weeks-old vase of flowers.



From _The Almost Moon_. It seemed like you didn't believe me. (I read that a few nights ago.)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 25, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Words change their meaning no matter how much pedants insist on 'The original meaning'; which their definition quite often isn't. Comprehension is the key.



Hyperbole is an accepted writing technique. I have written a lot about metaphoricals, and one of the interesting rules is that there should be some cue to show that they are metaphorical. It will be very difficult to find a counter-example.



> I think I just made a zillion mistakes.
> 
> She carried a black imitation leather purse the size of a Buick (Crais)



So "I have a PhD in economics" is not hyperbole, assuming it's believable. Saying of a 6-year old "She has a PhD in economics" is hyperbole, because it cannot be believed.

Hyperbole is most definitely not an attempt to deceive. If you say something with an intent of deceiving people, or hoping they believe what you say, that is not hyperbole, as a writing technique.

People nowadays say "I was just using hyperbole" when they provided no clue that they were using hyperbole. So it really is decieving. I assume they call it hyperbole because that's an acceptable writing technique, but they have discarded the part of the technique that makes it not deceiving.

So, I maintain, there are times to defend current usage. Which I agree might be impossible, unfortunately. If the meaning of hyperbole has really changed, then maybe we need a new word to express what we do in writing. Which is difficult to do, and anyway then our word will be stolen again.


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 25, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> are you dead or are you talking.



This is one reason spec fic is so hard to write.

In a genre where animals can turn into buildings, mountains can walk, and dead people can wander around - unclear grammar can be VERY confusing.

Here's an example I read in a book the other day:

*"Walking by, the post office was seen."*

vs.

*"Walking by, we saw the post office."*

The first one creates an imagine of the post office walking down the street, trying to be seen. That's not a terrible blunder for normal writing (of course that's not what happened) but if your story contains lots of speculative elements, maybe the reader WILL think that the post office was walking by.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 25, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Strong regional dialects were the province of the working classes, who were mainly illiterate in the 1800's. The literate, educated classes spoke received English no matter where they came from. The breakdown of strong dialects came later during the first world war when regional regiments were decimated and the fragments united. The process was accelerated by the death of so many young junior officers that the new middle classes were promoted into the officer ranks, previously the preserve of the upper classes, and by the coming of the BBC radio and BBC English. Amongst those who were running the country there was a common language, received English, with a common grammar, but the rules of grammar appealed to a Victorian sense of order. There was not grammatical lawlessness, but they wanted something like spelling books to sit down and learn rules from. Same sort of thing with actual handwriting, children had 'copy books' with an ideal example at the top of the page and then half a dozen lines below to copy it as near as possible, no individualism. This was about the same time uniforms came into vogue. The illiterate masses who spoke dialect with various grammatical peculiarities counted for nothing but a pool of labour and ordinary soldiers.
> Charles the first you are going back to the first part of the 1600's, that's a long time.



That's absolutely fascinating, Olly. Genuinely.


----------

