# Understanding full sentences.



## Greimour (May 13, 2014)

(Last sentence disclaimer to help prevent posts as long as this one)

OK. I am pretty sure I understand full sentences, yet I still get cases where writing programs tell me a sentence is fragmented. On occasion, I understand why the program has come to the conclusion, other times I doubt my prose. Sometimes I think I have completely lost all concepts of sentence structure and fail to see the problems I have created.

Examples of Problems:

Infinitive Phrase Fragments
Participle Phrase Fragments
Afterthought Fragments
...more...

The underlining green warning of my sentences usually says: "Fragmented, consider revising"
- Revising what you piece of crap!

My understanding of a full sentence is in 3 parts:
*Subject* + _Verb_ + Complete thought. (or Subject, verb, object, in the example that will follow home will be the object)

A full sentence:

*Cheryl*_ went _home.

In the (very short) full sentence exampled, the subject is Cheryl, the verb is went and the complete thought is the understanding given by it's completion. (It makes sense. if it said, "Cheryl went..." it wouldn't make sense because we would immediately ask "where?")

Conversation sentences have rules that negate the full sentence a little bit, for example: "Come."
In that example, the verb is _come_, the subject would obviously be "you"(or person spoken to) and the complete thought being the understanding that you are to follow. 

So for this thread, my questions are:

1. What is your understanding of a full sentence?
2. Do you have examples where you have broken the 'rule' intentionally?
3. Do you have examples where you have broken/fragmented sentences accidentally?
4. Have you ever fragmented and not understood why the sentence is fragmented?
5. Do any of you struggle with placing the correct grammatical symbols in the correct places, and why?

Obviously you don't have to answer them all. You don't even have to reply. I am just curious as to what people consider 'full sentences' and where do you struggle in maintaining prose or finding correct grammatical use.

Here is one example (a poor one):

Appositive Fragment:
My friend, *Paul*, is the jealous type.

From my understanding, Paul would be the appositive fragment: An appositional phrase (explanation phrase) is a noun-based fragment (no  verb in it) that explains a bit of info about the preceding noun.
But... what is so bad about that? 
If I write it without the commas is it better or am I breaking some rule that I don't understand? I don't entirely get the deal with appositive fragments. Word Programs - such as MS Word - don't usually highlight them as a problem... so should I be concerned with such fragments? I tend to remove the commas and just leave such sentences without but I don't even know if that fixes things. 

Anyway... thoughts and comments to enlighten writers on rules of complete sentences*??

I don't mean for you to explain every type of fragment, just problems you have encountered (done or seen) or your understanding of what a full sentence is.*


----------



## Bishop (May 13, 2014)

Complete sentences are usually just a subject and a verb. Sometimes, just a verb and an implied subject.

"Went." Can be a sentence. Imagine:

"He came?" Jack asked.

Jill shook her head, "Went." 

Technically, "Went" has the implied subject of "he" making it a complete sentence. Microsoft word tells me a lot of my sentences are not sentences because of the syntax. For example in my WIP: "It waited, empty and powered down, for her to enter." That reads as a fragment. It's not. "It waited for her to enter" shows up as a complete sentence. The program is getting confused because of the injected descriptive clause, in which it loses track of the subject and the primary verb clause. In other words, it treats "It waited" as a dependent clause instead of an independent clause that it is. Grammatically, "My friend Paul is the jealous type" is the BEST way to do it, BUT, "My friend, Paul, is the jealous type" is also correct. It's just adding unnecessary commas. We as writers do this intentionally for effect, to give the sentence a particular flow. 

So, in short... you're not wrong, the program just doesn't pick up on stylistic alterations. Similarly, it's not wrong to use a fragment in a narrative. I do it once or twice per book in moments of necessary effect. Or not. 

See, get it? That last part was a fragment!

To answer your questions directly:
1. What is your understanding of a full sentence? Subject (Present or implied) + Verb
2. Do you have examples where you have broken the 'rule' intentionally? Yes, all the time. People often speak in fragments, so it gets into my dialogue a lot.
3. Do you have examples where you have broken/fragmented sentences accidentally? Yes, see above, though it's technically not a fragment, just that Microsoft Word thinks it is.
4. Have you ever fragmented and not understood why the sentence is fragmented? Not really. I understand English and computers, so I can tell when my PC is just not understanding the syntax or structure of the sentence.
5. Do any of you struggle with placing the correct grammatical symbols in the correct places, and why? Again, no. Mostly because I went to school for X years learning everything I could about English and grammar, but also because I'm fairly set in my style of writing.


----------



## Sam (May 13, 2014)

Do not pay *any *attention to grammar and punctuation checkers in Microsoft Word or any similar writing program. They are wrong over half of the time.


----------



## Morkonan (May 13, 2014)

Greimour said:


> ....
> So for this thread, my questions are:
> 
> 1. What is your understanding of a full sentence?



Intuitive. 



> 2. Do you have examples where you have broken the 'rule' intentionally?



Absolutely! Probably... maybe? I don't know.



> 3. Do you have examples where you have broken/fragmented sentences accidentally?



Almost never.



> 4. Have you ever fragmented and not understood why the sentence is fragmented?



Hmm, not since fifth-grade or so. My mother was a teacher, my aunt was a teacher, my father was an engineer, other relatives were doctors and professionals, a couple of artists... My point is that nobody ever gave me a chance to screw up very often... 



> 5. Do any of you struggle with placing the correct grammatical symbols in the correct places, and why?



Do you mean "grammatical symbols" as being "punctuation?" If so, then my answer is "Yes." However, mistakes are infrequent and usually only associated with recurring issues that my aging brain has decided I will never be able to correct. For instance, if it involves a semi-colon, I have to pick up a grammar book. If it's a tricky intentionally run-on sentence, I may have to figure out what I want to do with some of the commas that I'm overusing. In fact, if it involves commas, you can be sure I'm in the thick of it, somewhere. That includes your manuscript - Commas are like blood-in-the-water to me. Dunno why... I'm infatuated with them. I love them, lots... Too lots.



> Here is one example (a poor one):
> 
> Appositive Fragment:
> My friend, *Paul*, is the jealous type.
> ...



I don't see any severe issue with that sentence. One thing that I think is a good rule of thumb when you're encountering random accusations of grammatical infidelity - If it reads well, it's likely worth keeping. But, if you don't know how to judge what reads well, your writing problem isn't based on grammar issues. 

Read good stuff, then you'll know.


----------



## Greimour (May 13, 2014)

Bishop said:


> "It waited, empty and powered down, for her to enter." That reads as a fragment.
> 
> 2. Do you have examples where you have broken the 'rule' intentionally? Yes, all the time. People often speak in fragments, so it gets into my dialogue a lot.



Agreeing with Sam that Word Programs get grammar wrong most of the time but sticking with the posts intention (because my most common highlighter of bad grammar/prose is people, such as on this forum) .. I would like to say that my word program doesn't mark your sentence as fragmented ^_^ Perhaps in conjunction to the rest of the section it was in the program would "change it's mind." I don't know ^_^

I mentioned in my post with the example of "Come" that dialogue indeed breaks the rules, I had meant to imply that I was not including dialogue in what a full sentence is <3
My bad on that one ^_^

Sam:
As stated, it's not just word programs that are my indicator for bad prose/grammar etc. But I often seen comments like Bishops: 





> "The program is getting confused because of the injected descriptive  clause, in which it loses track of the subject and the primary verb  clause."


My aim of this thread is to super simplify it so that others can understand. I don't trust my abilities enough to undertake the task alone so figured a discussion board is the best place to gain complete understanding.

***

Example drawn from my younger days. (Elementary/Primary school): True story.

There was once a time I couldn't get to grips with verbs. To try and give me understanding, my teacher tried to simplify it and separate/explain different types of verbs. 
Irregular Verbs, (verbs that change tense)
Write / Wrote/ Written / 
Choose / Chose / Chosen

 Helping Verbs:
Would, Have, Had, Should, Could

Action Verbs
Add, Drop, Hang, Knit

... 

All this did was complicate things and all I could think of was subject+verb... but then all I could think of when applying that rule was if the word I used after a subject was a verb. Then I would wonder if they had to be side by side or just in the same sentence. Oh my days the stress levels!

 For a long time all I could do was read and try to figure out the Subject+Verb in every sentence I read. When I finally thought I figured it out, my teacher told me I was missing 'complete thought' or 'object' ... so the sentence -despite having both subject and verb- didn't finish. 

"Because Johnny caught the eye of the beautiful brunette in algebra." = Subject + Verb without complete thought (no understanding given)
The preceding sentence may give that one meaning, but that means it should then be following something other than a period, such as a comma or whatever may be required. Alternatively, remove the period and continue the sentence until meaning has been reached. Finally, all you really have to do is remove "Because" and it becomes a complete sentence.

I was so confused. In the end I just wrote however I felt like and ignored the damn rules and for a long time I didn't get pulled up on my sentences. Eventually, my misplaced commas and lack of prose started to affect my grades but I had been ignoring the rules for so long I was convinced I could keep winging it without understanding or comprehension. 

Eventually, I started ignoring the teachers instead and taught myself. 
Teacher or Dictionary: "Verb: A word to describe action, state, occurrence and form the main part of the predicate of a sentence"
*Me*: "Predicate?" 
Dictionary: "The part of a sentence or clause containing a verb."
*Me:* "What part of a sentence is a clause? Huh?"
Dictionary: "Clause: _Grammar_  A group of words containing a subject and a predicate and forming part of a compound or complex sentence."
*Me:* "Great, I am back at Predicate, what the hell?"
Dictionary: "Compound: A word that consists either of two or more elements that are independent words, such as "loudspeaker" "baby-sit"
*Me:* "Huh?! If that's not the definition I should be looking at from the choices given, I am even more confused. Screw it..."
*Understanding*: "A word that describes what the subject of the text does -Examples: Johnny _went_ _to_ the park. - The dog _jumped_ over the fence - would over be a verb? I don't know I give up."


Over the years I have simplified many 'rules' down to statements of 'simple English' and my understanding has grown steadily - such as 'over' from my above example I believe is an adverb, but I still get confused to this day.

Instead of throwing out words like: discourse, participle, predicate, [xyz] clause, etc... I just use simple English to explain something and give 1-3 examples. 

Example: (Truly happened but don't remember word perfect)
"I don't get what an adjective is. A word naming the attribute of a noun?"

My answer:
Do you first know what a noun is? If yes, then it is anything that describes or further describes a noun (or *pronoun*)
Simplified examples being "_white_ rose" or "_red _rose" - other simple examples would be "it was _sweet_ of *him* to help out" - "it was a _rainy_ day"
Anything used to describe or further describe a noun or pronoun is an adjective.

Reply:
Thanks. I think I get it. I think the examples help more than the definition -.-'' 

***

That was an easy one and perhaps that particular poster should have done better at looking up the definitions, but back then I am not even sure google was around and the point remains. If you wanted to teach this stuff to a seven-year-old how simply could you explain this stuff?

Bishop, in your example, could you give the same explanation in a way that the average eight-year-old would understand?
(For the record, despite scoring high in English throughout pretty much all of my school life, I had people trying to explain this stuff to me from age 6-16 and I still didn't get it at 16. I just ran with what sounded right in common speech and used the method I had seen written in books. Worked out OK for me up until that point.)


----------



## Greimour (May 13, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> Do you mean "grammatical symbols" as being "punctuation?" If so, then my answer is "Yes."
> 
> 
> I don't see any severe issue with that sentence. One thing that I think is a good rule of thumb when you're encountering random accusations of grammatical infidelity - If it reads well, it's likely worth keeping. But, if you don't know how to judge what reads well, your writing problem isn't based on grammar issues.
> ...



Yes, Punctuation... I went with symbols because I felt it was easier (simpler) ... say punctuation and too many people limit it to periods, commas and capital letters... (not so much here though, thankfully.)

Regarding the "if you don't know if it reads well"
Hehe ^_^ ... I am very well read. My entire understanding of the written language is primarily thanks to how much I have read. That includes understanding grammar and sentence structure etc... I couldn't understand what I was being told by the methods they were using to teach me (they couldn't dumb it down to the bare bones and have me understand it at the most basic level - so I read and read and read... then I read some more - eventually I turned to some form of instinct or intuition that had manifested following that reading) 

I can't understand anything unless I understand it at the most basic, primary - most fundamental - level. As soon as I know the most basic principle in all it's magnificence... then I can leap straight past the boring stuff and go straight on to the difficult material. (I don't know why this is the case, but that has always been true)

Final note: I didn't really create this thread for me. Like I said, I think I pretty much got it all figured out by now... I just want to find a way to pass on this knowledge in the most stupidly(cleverly) simplistic way possible.


----------



## Sam (May 13, 2014)

You don't need to know the parts of a sentence to know how to write a sentence. I barely know any of them and it hasn't held me back.


----------



## garza (May 13, 2014)

1. A group of words either forms a sentence or does not. There's no 'consider' involved. cf _The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the English Language_, ninth edition 1995, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 1261.

2. Many examples. 
One from 'Venus in Transit' comes to mind. '_Coach, a word?_' And here's a bit from '_A Man Called Changsai_': 
'_The boy. Trust. I trusted him.'
'Of course you did, Mr. Sinclair. You are the third foreign policeman who has trusted Aron, and you will be the third to die because of it.' 
'Why is he. What,' said the Englishman_.

3. Probably, but if they were accidents, and if I never caught them, or an editor never brought them to my attention, I'd not know about them. 

4. No. 

5. Only with end stops after quotation marks because of the difference between Hart's Rules and U.S. misunderstanding. Fowler has a good explanation of this issue. U.S. editors quietly change the copy to in accordance with their preferred style manual.

I'm not familiar with 'appositive fragments'. Fowler is silent on the subject. In the example given, 'Paul' would be in apposition to 'friend'. The sentence is complete.

What Sam said about grammar and punctuation checkers is correct. Get copies of Fowler, Hart's Rules, the Oxford Style Manual, an Oxford dictionary, and, if you are in the U.S. the Chicago Style Manual.

edit - Greimour - I saw your post after I had already posted. There is no 'boring stuff' in the study of any language. A good first-form grammar book will give you most of what you need to know.


----------



## Greimour (May 13, 2014)

garza said:


> 1. A group of words either forms a sentence or does not. There's no 'consider' involved. cf _The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the English Language_, ninth edition 1995, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 1261.



In what way does that tell someone what a sentence is?

"My mom sweets buy me when good"
Subject, verb, complete thought = complete full sentence. Are we then to say that this sentence is correct? "His mom buys him sweets when he is good." Being the _understanding  _and therefore the _complete thought_ of the sentence. I note this complete thought because: "She went" = Subject and verb. Written in the right text, it is a full 'proper' sentence. Written alone it is not. (See Bishops example when, once more, dialogue was used as the example text)

I can easily say that I 'consider' that sentence to be incorrect despite any claims that it is correct. To consider anything is a prerogative of any free thinking person:
(consider: think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision.)
I can also 'consider' it to be correct, for the aforementioned reason/s. To consider anything is simply to think carefully before making up your own mind. 

*A group of words either makes a sentence or it does not.* - Correct.
Is this group of words a sentence? - "I believe so, yes" - that _decision_ of "yes it is a sentence" was only concluded after first _considering_ the sentence in question.

Clearly, considering is involved. The section I quote you on... Was that "no consider is involved" section also part of the concise dictionary? The quote implied that it was but I can't imagine it being and I don't have a copy to check.

Regarding #2 - I have already stated that - Quote: "Conversation sentences have rules that negate the full sentence"
To word it another way: Conversations and dialogue do not have to follow the rules of proper sentencing but may have to stay within perimeters of their own construction once dialogue has been set up. For example, a mans manner of speech must stay consistent to remain true to his character whilst it equally does not have to stay correct in terms of what a proper sentence is.


> '_The boy. Trust. I trusted him.'
> 'Of course you did, Mr. Sinclair._


That is clearly dialogue. In other words... it is conversation and so not exactly what #1 is referring to.

***



Sam said:


> You don't need to know the parts of a sentence to  know how to write a sentence. I barely know any of them and it hasn't  held me back.



Agreed, I stated already that I got by just fine for countless years without understanding it. But that doesn't help those who can't grasp it without explanation. Not everyone can work on logic, reason and intuitiveness. I mean to find a way to explain so that when I find incorrect sentences in peoples work - I might be able to better explain what they are doing and why it is wrong. 

I can't just tell them: "This sentence is wrong. I don't know why but I can tell because I know how they should be written and it's not like that."

Additionally, I hope that this thread may help enlighten people on correcting their own work - or otherwise give them understanding for sentence construction (based on the knowledge shared by the large amount of individuals on this forum that know what they are talking about)


----------



## garza (May 13, 2014)

Sorry. I suppose I should have quoted the reference. I have a bad habit of forgetting that not everyone has the same reference books that I use. Here is the entry for 'sentence' in the Oxford Concise:
_1 *a* a set of words complete in itself as the expression of a thought, containing or implying a subject and predicate and conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command*. b* a piece of writing or speech between two full stops or equivalent pauses, often including several grammatical sentences (e.g. I went; he came) _
_The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the English Language_, ninth edition 1995, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 1261.

'_My mom sweets buy me when good_.' does not use the word order many people are accustomed to seeing, but the sentence is perfectly understandable. It 'conveys a statement'. I've spent time in parts of the world where this would be considered perfect English.

Regarding 'she went' I believe you mean to say that in the right context it would be correct. For example, 'Did Mary go to the concert?' 'She went.' Why would it somehow lose it rating as a sentence if it stands alone? It's a clear statement between full stops containing a subject and predicate.

I can consider the Moon to be made of mouldy cheddar, but I would be wrong. If you plan to use the language as you way of making a living, as I have done for 60 years since age 14, you may need to put aside your considering and study the language as it is and as it has developed from the time of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles to the present. It's a wonderful story. 

I'm not following you at all in your 'Regarding Number 2' bit. Show me the rule please, in any recognised grammar book or usage manual that says sentences in dialogue have different rules? A sentence is a sentence. A fragment is a fragment. Fragments are common in speech, but they are not sentences. They do not meet all the requirements. Such fragments are recognised as useful, but they remain fragments. Please give me a reference. 

Logic and reason have little to do with English grammar or spelling. Many see this as a weakness, but many of us see it as the greatest strength of the language. Spanish, which I must use daily because the the part of the country where I live, is very logical, based as it is on Latin and through Latin on Greek. Learning Spanish is easy for anyone. Learning English can be impossible for many. I've taught English as a second language and the biggest stumbling block is that many students try to rely on logic. They often fail because they are looking for the same systematic ordering of English as they see in other European languages and it is not there. 

The lack of any fundamental logic in English allows the language to adapt to different cultures and to absorb what is useful from other languages. English is flexible and adaptable in ways that you will find in no other language. The English language has been my life. I've made my living writing it and I've spent many thousands of hours studying it.  

I believe you would benefit by the use of such references as _Fowler's Modern English Usage_ (I recommend the fourth, Burchfield, edition), _Hart's Rules_, and the _Oxford Usage Manual_. All are available from Amazon. Of course a good dictionary is a must. For ready reference I use the _Oxford Concise_. If you are in the U.S. and prefer U.S. spelling and usage there are many good usage manuals and dictionaries available. I recommend Fowler especially because I've used _Modern English Usage_ in its several editions since I was ten years old.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (May 14, 2014)

> You don't need to know the parts of a sentence to know how to write a sentence. I barely know any of them and it hasn't held me back.


  ^This. Everything I know about putting the words together in the proper sequence comes from having read an awful lot of books.  Since 99% of the reviews I get make no mention of bad sentence structure, I guess I am doing okay for myself.


----------



## Bishop (May 14, 2014)

Greimour said:


> Bishop, in your example, could you give the same explanation in a way that the average eight-year-old would understand?



Here's what I said before, because I'm too lazy to hit the "multi-quote" post thingy: "It waited, empty and powered down, for her to enter." That reads as a fragment. It's not. "It waited for her to enter" shows up as a complete sentence. The program is getting confused because of the injected descriptive clause, in which it loses track of the subject and the primary verb clause. In other words, it treats "It waited" as a dependent clause instead of an independent clause that it is.

To put it as basically as I can... It's like when you see a flashback in a movie. The program watches the "movie" (the sentence) and can't recognize what's part of the flashback and what's really happening at that moment, so it thinks everything's disjointed and out of order.


----------



## Morkonan (May 14, 2014)

Greimour said:


> ...I can't understand anything unless I understand it at the most basic, primary - most fundamental - level. As soon as I know the most basic principle in all it's magnificence... then I can leap straight past the boring stuff and go straight on to the difficult material. (I don't know why this is the case, but that has always been true)



It's a good general approach to "learning." I'm one of those people that seems to require an intimate understanding of "processes." I love processes... I dunno why. It's not that I'm rigorous in certain practices, it's just that I'm attracted by hidden complexity. And, what's got more hidden complexity than a Tax Code? Writing. 



> Final note: I didn't really create this thread for me. Like I said, I think I pretty much got it all figured out by now... I just want to find a way to pass on this knowledge in the most stupidly(cleverly) simplistic way possible.



It's in such ways that you serve the "Past You", who may appear here at any time, asking the same questions you did. For myself, I just love to gab about stuffs I love. Writing is one of those things I gab about. Plus, I'm always seeking new ways to explore known topics, just to investigate whether or not there's something in those subjects that I haven't previously thought about. Writing always has something new to discover within it and that's one of the reasons discussing writing is so entertaining. At least for those that like to learn new things or to more keenly understand old ones.


----------



## Greimour (May 19, 2014)

garza said:


> Regarding 'she went' I believe you mean to say that in the right context it would be correct. For example, 'Did Mary go to the concert?' 'She went.' Why would it somehow lose it rating as a sentence if it stands alone? It's a clear statement between full stops containing a subject and predicate.



My points were: 
1. Consider: you still consider a sentence before you decide if it is in fact a sentence. So considering is involved. You can't say: "That sentence is correct" before you know what the sentence is. (Before you have read/heard/whatever the sentence... you have to take the sentence into consideration)

2. 





> _1 *a* a set of words complete in itself as the expression of a  thought, containing or implying a subject and predicate and conveying a  statement, question, exclamation, or command*. b* a piece of  writing or speech between two full stops or equivalent pauses, often  including several grammatical sentences (e.g. I went; he came) _
> _The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the English Language_, ninth edition 1995, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 1261.



I already agreed with the definition. I never disputed it. The point I was getting at is that it is written in a way that presumes understanding will be attained upon its reading. People don't understand simply because you lay on information like that. - In other words... how do we dumb that down?
- Go one step more. How could you, personally, write that in a way that is easier to understand. There are people who can construct sentences perfectly 10 times out of 10 without being able to understand what that dictionary is saying.

3.  Back to what I originally quoted: "She went"
How is it not a sentence when standing alone?
Outside of dialogue, how does 'she went' form a complete sentence?

Jack slouched into the pub corner far too hammered to hold his weight any longer. She went. The barman fed up of Jack's ever increasing tab decided it was time Jack was gone. Throwing Jack out, he decided once and for all - Jack would not be allowed in again unless he first paid his tab.

^ She who? Went where? Proper sentence? Subject+Verb ... sure .. meaning, understanding, purpose? None. I could make "She went" have meaning, but on it's own like that, it does not belong. I just feel like you purposely sent the point astray. 

Let's put it this way:

Jack is 13 and keeps getting in trouble with his English teacher. She puts red lines through many of his sentences because they don't belong. He can't understand what the teacher is trying to tell him and she wont even attempt to dumb it down. He wants to know how to write sentences in a full paragraph so that he will no longer get in trouble. How can he get understanding to achieve this goal?


----------



## Riptide (May 19, 2014)

The program I use doesn't have those squiggly green lines, only the pretty red ones. Yeah, I use them intentionally when the character is in a panic, or for stream of conscious, stuff to make it more life-like of an experience for the reader.


----------



## garza (May 19, 2014)

Greimour - I have no idea what point you are trying to make. There are sentence fragments and there are sentences. To put it as simply as I know how: _To be a sentence, a group of words must contain a subject, either expressed or implied, and a predicate, and must express a complete thought._ A group of words that does not meet this definition is a sentence fragment. I've taught English as a second language and I've never had a problem getting people to understand that idea. I've never needed to 'dumb down' the basic concepts of the language.

_She went_ is a complete sentence. It contains a subject, the pronoun 'she', and a predicate, the indicative simple past tense of the verb 'to go', and expresses a complete thought. Whether the sentence is apropos in any given context has nothing to do with whether the group of words is or is not a sentence.

By your reasoning we can put any sentence into a context where it does not belong and suddenly it's not a sentence any longer. 

A suggestion. Either accept the rules of English grammar as they are commonly agreed upon, or write your own book of rules.


----------



## Greimour (May 30, 2014)

You taught it yet you still don't get what I am saying... -.-''

You said you had no problem getting people to understand 'that idea' which is in fact - understand 'that definition'. Then you should already understand what I am getting at. I don't want the definition of a sentence, I can do that already. You never had a problem to make people understand it, great - how did you get them to understand it? Did you quote that passage in the dictionary and they all said: "Oh, I get it" ???

No?

So what did you say? 

I could reword the title:

"Understanding a sentence" becomes "Understanding the definition of what a sentence is"

So how did you get people to understand that concept/definition/idea ... what did you say or show as example that allowed people to understand what you were teaching them? That is the point I am getting at. I had friends in high school who asked me for help because I was getting good grades and they weren't... my work was getting A's and B's whilst they were getting D's... but I was unable to explain stuff to them that helped them.

'Friend' writes a short story for English assignment. He gets me to read it. I highlighted all the areas he needed to rewrite and tried (miserably) to explain why. I failed to explain why, he eventually gave up and submitted his piece. The teacher highlighted the same sections and explained what was wrong - he didn't get it. He also wrote 'sentences' as far as that definition goes - but he didn't construct the piece properly. That is the point I am making. 
For example, friend writes: 
"Me and Greimour went to the market"
Teacher gives him bad grade.
I write: "My friend and I went to the market.
Teacher gives me a better grade and my friend wants me to explain the difference of our sentences. I can't, I don't know how.

Do you get it now? Is it still incomprehensible?

It has been far too many years for me to give direct examples, but I still remember the event even if I don't remember the work. I felt like I let him down and I still think about it on occasion. 

I could give other examples that are equally vague but really, all I am trying to do is put my knowledge into words. When I see a sentence that needs fixing or isn't worded properly or whatever (in the sense of being graded in a classroom, Mr teacher) I want to be able to properly express my point of view or to properly make the person understand why their work is incorrect. 

Knowing their work is wrong doesn't allow me to explain *why* their work is wrong.

Get it now? I never once asked for the definition of a sentence, I only ever asked for 'understanding' of a sentence. As a teacher who granted people this 'understanding' when they are using it as a second language - I would have expected you to have had students that struggled to understand - that needed explanations in more than one way. People who needed examples of sentences - people who needed visual aide with the work you were teaching.

People learn in different ways. Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic - some people can only learn if it is presented a specific way. You can't expect everyone to understand a dictionary definition. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself so I will do it one more time. 

I don't need the definition of a sentence. Nor did I ask for one. Any fool can look that up. Some people don't need further explanation than the dictionary definition - but others do. This entire thread was to give 'understanding' ... How would you explain that definition to someone who can't even understand what a predicate is? 



			
				Garza said:
			
		

> I've taught English as a second language and I've never had a problem getting people to _*understand*_ that idea


----------



## Bishop (May 30, 2014)

Greimour said:


> Knowing their work is wrong doesn't allow me to explain *why* their work is wrong.



What it sounds like, to me, is that you were taught a lot of rules/grammar practices that you absorbed and practice, but cannot articulate the reason why someone is doing it wrong when they're doing it wrong? Unfortunately, a lot of times the answer is, "it's just wrong." Sometimes, reason details can be given, but the issue is that it'd have to be taken on a case to case basis. There's no one or two all encompassing rules. English is a pain-in-the-ass language compared to most because of a lot of its irregularities and arbitrary practices.


----------



## garza (May 30, 2014)

Okay, this is a different subject altogether. What you are talking about now is whether a sentence is grammatically correct. That's not what we were talking about before. We were talking about whether a group of words forms a sentence. A group of words can be a sentence as defined, and yet not be grammatically correct. That is a different issue.

'Me and Greimour went to the market' is a sentence. The subject is 'me and Greimour'. The verb is 'went'. The complete predicate is 'went to the market'. There is a subject, a predicate, and the expression of a complete thought, therefore it is a sentence. However, it is not grammatically correct. The problem is the pronoun 'me'. Me is an objective case pronoun. The pronouns me, us, him, her, them, and whom are objective case pronouns. None of them may be used as the subject of a sentence.

The pronouns I, we, he, she, who, and they are subjective case pronouns. Any of these may be used as the subject of a sentence and may not be used as an object.

_I throw the ball to him._ 'I' is *subjective* *case* and is the *subject* of the sentence. 'Him' is *objective case* and is the *object* of the preposition 'to'.

_He throw's the ball to me_. 'He' is *subjective* *case* and is the *subject* of the sentence. 'Me'  is *objective case* and is the *object* of the preposition 'to'.

_Me throws the ball to he_ and _him throws the ball to I_ are both sentences. Each contains a subject and a predicate and each expresses a complete thought. They are, by definition, sentences. They are also grammatically incorrect.

A noun or pronoun that is doing something is subjective. A noun or pronoun to which something is being done is objective. 

Here's is a simple explanation I've used in ESL classes: If the arrow points away from me, I am the subject. If the arrow points towards me, I am the object. I demonstrate visually with my hand pointing away from me then pointing towards me.

There are also the *possessive case* pronouns, my, mine, our, ours, his, hers, their, theirs, and whose. They show possession or ownership. 

I really recommend that you get hold of a good high school English grammar textbook and study it. There are endless grammar courses and references on the Internet and they are useful, but a textbook, notepad, and pencil are portable and can go with you anywhere. A good usage manual such as _Fowler's Modern English Usage_ would help you understand why we put words together the way we do. 

If this does not yet answer your question, I'll try to be plainer.


----------



## Greimour (Oct 24, 2014)

Digging this up from the archive now I am active again.

Yes Garza, it appears I was completely limiting my aim on a huge level. (In no small way thanks to the title) 
The mistake initially was mine, followed by my roundabout way of getting across what I was actually aiming for. Sorry for that.

My objective is making people understand a sentence in its entirety, which includes grammar.

Not only am I aiming for explanations to get across understanding, but examples of both 'right' and 'wrong' with explanations of why in each case.



> _I throw the ball to him._ 'I' is *subjective* *case* and is the *subject* of the sentence. 'Him' is *objective case* and is the *object* of the preposition 'to'.
> 
> _He throw's the ball to me_. 'He' is *subjective* *case* and is the *subject* of the sentence. 'Me'  is *objective case* and is the *object* of the preposition 'to'.
> 
> ...



That is a good example toward what I am aiming for.



> I really recommend that you get hold of a good high school English  grammar textbook and study it. There are endless grammar courses and  references on the Internet and they are useful, but a textbook, notepad,  and pencil are portable and can go with you anywhere. A good usage  manual such as _Fowler's Modern English Usage_ would help you understand why we put words together the way we do.



That was what you told them or are advising me to do?

Again, this is not for me. I have read such books and it didn't make passing on my knowledge any easier. Take that Oxford Concise definition thing you recited for example. If a teacher ever said something like that to me in high school, it would have been in one ear and out of the other. My understanding of English got me A's and yet that definition would have gone right over my head.

~~~

To further expand and explain on what I am aiming for:

The semicolon- ;

1. A _semicolon_ can be used between two closely related independent clauses, provided they are not already joined by a coordinating conjunction.

Someone who reads that may not (for whatever reason) understand what is being said. Another way to word it which is simpler in my opinion could be:
:: A complete sentence that meets another related complete sentence which is not joined by another coordinating conjunction (and, but, for, or, nor, yet, so) can be separated by a semicolon. 

But that only partly explains when/how a semicolon _can_ be used. For example, there is also: Full sentence; conjunctive adverb, full sentence.

At this point give examples of each - but right now I am only explaining my aim.

###

When I say _UNDERSTANDING_ full sentences. I am not just talking about Subject + Verb + Complete thought. I am talking about _all sentences_ including structure, grammar and punctuation. It includes why we use commas, semicolons, Em dashes, En dashes, colons, apostrophes, ellipses and even et cetera. 

For example, I have come across a great many people that didn't know 'etc' always follows a comma and always ends in a period (otherwise known as a full stop).
I have come across people discussing which way to use ellipses. 
Like ... this?
Or... this?
Or maybe...this?

There is very few aspects I have not come across and contemplated putting together explanations for all of it. 

When this thread has enough information on it for me to use, I will then put it all together as best I can in a thread of its own in the SPaG section of this forum. I doubt my ability to do it alone though. I also believe that by getting other knowledgeable members to help me (such as you Garza) that I might come across far more ways of explaining it effectively and more subjects linked in with my aim. 

Hope that helps get across the purpose of this thread.


~Kev


Edit:

Things I am hoping to address:

Simple Sentence (mostly covered already) 
* Subject + Predicate.
*
Simple sentence linked with semicolon and transition (as partially stated above)
*Complete Sentence; Complete Sentence*
*
Compound sentence:*
Complete Sentence*, and *Complete Sentence
(that's one example)

*Brackets/Parenthesis*
*Square Brackets/Crotches
Using bracketed Ellipses and what it means [...]*


[list goes on]


----------



## garza (Oct 24, 2014)

To have the ability to understand a subject yourself has little or no relationship with whether you can lead others to understand that subject. I remember a tenured professor of mathematics I had at university. She was brilliant. Based on her academic _bona fides_, I signed up for a course in advanced algebra she taught. Or rather, she attempted to teach. She had no ability to pass on what she understood but rather created confusion in the minds of her students.  

To have the ability to lead someone to understand a subject is an inborn skill that cannot, in my opinion, be taught. I've been in demand as an ESL teacher, mostly for Central American refugees in Belize, not because of my academic qualifications but because of my ability to stand in a classroom and lead others to an understanding of how the English language works. It's easy if you have the knack; impossible if you don't. 

Please don't be offended, but I would suggest you use your knowledge of the language in original writing and leave grammatical explanations to others. .


----------



## Greimour (Oct 24, 2014)

garza said:


> To have the ability to lead someone to understand a subject is an inborn skill that cannot, in my opinion, be taught. I've been in demand as an ESL teacher, mostly for Central American refugees in Belize, not because of my academic qualifications but because of my ability to stand in a classroom and lead others to an understanding of how the English language works. It's easy if you have the knack; impossible if you don't.
> 
> Please don't be offended, but I would suggest you use your knowledge of the language in original writing and leave grammatical explanations to others. .



I am not offended, but I do disagree with your opinion of inborn skill. When I signed up to this forum, I would never have agreed to be a mentor. I did not have the skill required to do it. Whether your opinion states I have it now or not is of no concern to me, I have already shown that I can do it. There are things that I can do but not teach, and oddly, there are things I can't do and can teach. For example, when I volunteered as a Youth Worker for stepping stones-a place that worked with young adults who were heading down the life of crime and had criminal records-I was surprised to find I had a knack for teaching DIY (despite the fact I was quite crap at it myself). I also found that teaching basic computers was incredibly easy to do. I also taught two people to read (which I had never even considered trying before) and helped another with spelling. I also taught an incredibly hostile girl of 17 how to do basic math along with her times tables and methods for working out harder multiplications. After she left stepping stones she got a job in a store and sent a letter of thanks back to stepping stones which had me as the addressee. 

For grammar: I have no problem understanding it myself and no problem reciting what books and other sources say on the subject. But as I have already said, that doesn't always give understanding and its not always easy to explain. There are MANY examples in life where this happens and not just to me. For example, whilst my sister was reading a book she said: "Kev, what does stupor mean?" ... I know exactly what stupor means, but at that moment in time I couldn't think of the exact definition or how to describe it to her. I ended up saying: "as in drunken stupor?" which I only asked to buy time and think. She replied 'yes'. So I answered with: "Think of it like being dazed and you wont be far wrong."

I knew the answer was lacking, but I also knew a synonym for Stupor was Daze, so it was not far off base. I simply couldn't find a way to translate my understanding of stupor into words. Without looking it up I later remember the right way to give the definition, but by then it was too late and she was no longer there to be told.

Someone once asked me what a synonym was and again, I didn't know how to answer so the conversation went like this:

Me: "You know what drunk is right?"
Him "Yes."
Me:"Whats the opposite?"
Him "Sober"
Me "Sober is an antonym of drunk. Basically, the opposite. Synonym then is similar to being 'the same as'. So a synonym of drunk will be a word that can be used in place of drunk. Do you know one?"
Him "No"
Me "You know what inebriated is?"
Him "I can't give a definition but yeah, now you've said it. So, inebriated is a synonym of drunk?"
Me "Yeah."
Him "OK, I think I get what a synonym is."

I have properly articulated what I wanted to convey in 99%+ of my responses and critiques. But that other 1% I had to change my wording and explain it differently - in a more long winded way, or else in other cases I simply failed. Equally, I have given responses that almost directly quote dictionaries and had members say: "What does that mean?" or "I don't get what you mean" ... and I am like: 
"Ugh. How do I explain something that has never been explained to me? I knew what it meant instantly so how do I reword it to make sense to someone who doesn't get it?"

Plenty of people struggle with things like that. Teachers, Scientists, Physicians, Doctors, etc. A doctor can know the medical problem a patient is having and struggle to word it in a way that the patient will understand. A teacher can use every known method to teach a student something and eventually give up. And a teacher can be asked a question they know the answer to and fail to find the words to answer. 

Teaching isn't an inborn gift. That is why people go to learn how to do it. They have courses on what to teach, how to teach it and have to go through 'placements' which is like apprenticeships before they get the qualifications. My dads wife was a teacher and personally, I think she is terribly suited to the job. She did it for many years though. My brothers fiancé definitely did NOT have the skill before. But she definitely does now and almost has all the qualifications she needs in order to become a teacher (think she has one final year of Uni)

So yeah, I definitely disagree with you. And if teaching is an inborn skill. I already have it. I may struggle with explaining grammar occasionally when they need something more than a dictionary definition - but with each time I successfully manage to pass on the information that comes to me intuitively, I get better at doing the same thing next time it is required.

It's hard to guess whether or not you just have a problem with me, considering we have come to 'disagreements' so many times. Particularly in the Pants vs Planner "discussion". It's a shame to me if that's the case, I think you're kind of brilliant. Despite our differences and opposing views, I think you're very intelligent and I have a great deal of respect for you. Or maybe just your brain. But either way, I only hold you in high regard. The small jabs though (which sometimes I wonder if I am imagining them or not) are a little tiresome.


----------



## garza (Oct 24, 2014)

We will have to disagree on whether the ability to teach is an inborn skill. My opinion is based on many years' observation. From what I have seen, teacher education is the same as music education. University training can bring out, guide, and polish a person's native ability but cannot create that ability. A person without a good sense of tone, rhythm, and harmony and the way they combine to create music may study for a lifetime and never become a competent musician. I've known a few barroom piano players who could hit all the right notes at the right time but their playing was terrible. They had no natural feel for the music, and one needed to be sufficiently drunk to appreciate their playing. That mathematician who was trying to teach the course in advanced algebra knew the subject but had no ability to explain what she knew to others. 

If you have a high success rate in explaining grammar in clean, clear, language that is easy to understand, then that's all to the good. Only be careful that your explanations do, truly, explain, and do not confuse. Unlike most European languages, English grammar is highly irregular and can  be very difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain. The structure of the language I have loved from childhood. The possibilities for expression are unlimited in English, but so are the possibilities for confusion. A major hurdle in teaching English to Spanish speakers is the expectation they have that they will find the same sort of order in English that exists in Spanish, and of course it's not there.

My favourite words are 'precise' and 'concise'. Say exactly what you mean using the fewest and simplest words possible. Good writing should be clean, clear, simple, direct, and strong. And in explaining a grammatical point, eschew obfuscation. Stay with the standard terminology. Continue, as I do, the study of the language using textbooks, usage manuals, dictionaries, and style guides. 

No small jabs are intended. My apologies if you have read any of my comments that way. When I was ten years old a teacher called me an 'arrogant little snot', which I took as a complement, and I've not changed my attitude in the 64 years that have passed since that day though I've grown a great deal taller. She'd not dare call me 'little' today.

Edit - Afterthought - I was appointed a Mentor a year or so ago and failed miserably. I need a classroom and a whiteboard.


----------



## Greimour (Oct 24, 2014)

garza said:


> My favourite words are 'precise' and 'concise'. Say exactly what you mean using the fewest and simplest words possible. Good writing should be clean, clear, simple, direct, and strong. And in explaining a grammatical point, eschew obfuscation. Stay with the standard terminology. Continue, as I do, the study of the language using textbooks, usage manuals, dictionaries, and style guides.



Believe me, I have all the same respects for this language as you do. I have also tried to follow 'precise and concise' on many occasions. Something you may have spotted me saying in this thread a few times is "dumb it down". My biggest problem is doing that. I don't know how to explain some things any simpler than a dictionary does. I can use my own words or a published resource - but the level of simplicity isn't often any simpler. As a result I take a really long roundabout way of explaining that uses the simplest words. The end result is a long winded passage that sometimes makes me think I've dropped an IQ level, and on other occasions, didn't even succeed in making the understanding any simpler. 

I have found after much trial and error that my most effective method comes in three parts.

1. Give the literal explanation. Difficult or not - even a citation from a source they have already failed to understand can work.

2. Explain what each section of the definition means. 

3. Examples.
Both the right way and the wrong way if possible or applicable.

I do that same process now for explaining almost anything. I have long since learned that throwing out words like Predicate make people nod without them knowing what the hell you are talking about. I can't tell who is understanding and who is nodding though, so I have started doing it even for the people who do understand. This sometimes comes across as a bad thing because they think I am treating them like an idiot. The truth however is that - even if they do understand the words I am using without explanation, another person who reads the same post might not ... so it is worth putting it in for their benefit.



> When I was ten years old a teacher called me an 'arrogant little snot', which I took as a complement, and I've not changed my attitude in the 64 years that have passed since that day though I've grown a great deal taller.-



That made me laugh. I wouldn't have called you arrogant though. My dads wife is arrogant and I have no time for arrogance. At worst maybe 'Overly opinionated and a little stubborn'. Both are traits I do not lack myself. Just that our lives have taught us opposing views. I don't put age before wisdom though, unfortunately.



> Edit - Afterthought - I was appointed a Mentor a year or so ago and failed miserably. I need a classroom and a whiteboard.



I knew you were a mentor, but I doubt you were bad at it. Your knowledge is vast and I have yet to see you share it in a way I that I consider hard to understand. 
Maybe I shouldn't say that though; our disagreements so far have always been where opinions are concerned  ... We have yet, as far as I can remember, disagree on anything factual. 
I can understand a desire for classroom and whiteboard - people like to do things the way they find most effective. This board probably limits your abilities in comparison. But I do not for a moment believe your abilities are lacking. 

Anyway, all this back and forth is way off topic and completely derailed. I think I might just address semicolons in SPaG and then other aspects like ellipses later. 
(At some point)


----------



## TKent (Oct 26, 2014)

Greimour,

I am reading 2 books right now that are really good on this general topic:

Stunning Sentences by Bruce Ross-Larson. OMG I never ever knew this much about sentences. I literally had 3 versions, simple, complex and compound. That was it.  It is a short book and you can finish it in a few hours.

Sin & Syntax: Writing Wicked Prose by Constance Hale - Not done with this one yet - it is much bigger but fantastic as well.  It isn't all about sentences but has so much good stuff on the topic.


----------



## garza (Oct 26, 2014)

Everything essential to the understanding of the English sentence can be found in any good first form grammar. Beyond those essentials the best sources for further study are the works of Henry Fowler, including _The King's English_ and the four editions of _Modern English Usage_. I've based my writing throughout my career on the works of Fowler with frequent reference to Oxford's _Concise English Dictionary_ and, where needed, to the OED. Along the way I've also profited from the advice of various editors regarding style.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 27, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> ^This. Everything I know about putting the words together in the proper sequence comes from having read an awful lot of books.  Since 99% of the reviews I get make no mention of bad sentence structure, I guess I am doing okay for myself.



Unfortunately, that's how a lot of people gain an understanding...and that's why a lot of people are wrong.  Published books are notorious for having grammatically incorrect sentence structure.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 27, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Unfortunately, that's how a lot of people gain an understanding...and that's why a lot of people are wrong.  Published books are notorious for having grammatically incorrect sentence structure.



That's like saying, "Don't listen to music if you want to be a musician, a lot of musicians out there have poor audio mixing and mastering."


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 27, 2014)

Bishop said:


> That's like saying, "Don't listen to music if you want to be a musician, a lot of musicians out there have poor audio mixing and mastering."



No, it's more like saying "Don't turn to popular music to learn proper music theory."  Which, I'd argue, is very true.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 27, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> No, it's more like saying "Don't turn to popular music to learn proper music theory."  Which, I'd argue, is very true.



Actually, a fair amount of popular music singers have fantastic training that backs up their voices, and their bands (usually session bands) are highly trained musicians, as session players have to be to be able to play any genre.

I'm not saying 2Chains is Mozart. But you're making dangerous generalizations.


----------

