# Which sentence is grammatically correct?



## cinderblock (Jun 24, 2015)

Each passing second made it ever evident, the methodology had not resonated with her, *consistently* with her coworkers.

or

Each passing second made it ever evident, the methodology had not resonated with her, *consistent* with her coworkers.


----------



## scrub puller (Jun 24, 2015)

Yair . . . 

*cinderblock. 

*I believe the second sentence is more correct in which I take 'consistent' when used in this context to mean "the same as" where as in the first sentence 'consistently' *may* mean "constantly" or "repetitively".


There are many folks on this board far more qualified to comment than I though.


As a little aside. I was advised many years ago to avoid words ending in "ly" wherever possible and, after every session, I go through and turf them out.



Cheers.


----------



## cinderblock (Jun 24, 2015)

scrub puller said:


> Yair . . .
> 
> *cinderblock.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks.

Is there a reason for avoiding "ly?"


----------



## scrub puller (Jun 24, 2015)

Yair . . .

*cinderblock. 

*I'm sure there is a "technical" reason and no doubt some one who knows English and writing will be able to explain but, to me it just tightens up the prose. . . makes it less 'wish washy'.

So too with words like "that", "was", "were" and a few others, I declare open season on them and banish them where ever possible.

Sorry I can't explain as I have little knowledge of English as such.

Cheers.


----------



## Mesafalcon (Jun 24, 2015)

I think they have two slightly different meanings when you ad the _-ly_.

*consistently* with her coworkers / consistant*ly* here can mean "always"

*consistent* with her coworkers. / consistan*t* here can mean "the same as"

... I think. I teacher Junior High School English (kind of).


----------



## musichal (Jun 24, 2015)

I think both are vague and awkwardly worded, needing the idea expressed another way.


----------



## Sam (Jun 24, 2015)

Neither is grammatically correct. 

The comma before 'the' is not necessary. Replace it with 'that'. Everything after the second comma makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say: that the methodology had not resonated with her as much as it had with her coworkers? 

Then say that. Quit complicating it.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 24, 2015)

> What are you trying to say


 Is it a fragment, the center clause? You could use em-dashes.

a)*Each passing second made it ever evident b) the methodology had not resonated with her c) consistently with her coworkers*.  Is it that 'A' causes 'b' , you could use a colon.... but then what is 'c' and how does it relate to the first two? Even with em-dashes it's unclear


----------



## John Oberon (Jun 24, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> Each passing second made it ever evident, the methodology had not resonated with her, *consistently* with her coworkers.
> 
> or
> 
> Each passing second made it ever evident, the methodology had not resonated with her, *consistent* with her coworkers.



Yeah, awkward. Get rid of the weak verbs. Say what you mean concisely:

_It became more evident each second; the methodology failed to resonate with her or her coworkers.
_


----------



## Kevin (Jun 24, 2015)

> _second; the _


 colon or semi-colon?


----------



## Riis Marshall (Jun 24, 2015)

Hello John and Kevin

I would have used a colon.

Great thread; let's keep it going.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Kevin (Jun 24, 2015)

I sometimes consider that cinder might actually be a teacher posing in order to draw us out.  Thank you, Cinder, either way.


----------



## John Oberon (Jun 24, 2015)

I think I could make a case for either one, but I tend to use a semi-colon when the idea coming after the semi-colon expands, specifies, or is closely related to the idea coming before the semi-colon (though not necessarily the same idea), and it's expressed in a complete sentence. I use the semi-colon when I want the reader to treat the two ideas as one complete thought. I use a period if I want to separate the ideas.

_I prefer musk melons to oranges; they're much more erotic in name and size.
He thought the money should go to charity; his wife thought otherwise.
_
I tend to use colons for lists or ideas expressed as phrases after the colon, which are tightly bound to the idea before the colon, and the transition is abrupt:

_We bought a variety of tools: hammers, saws, drills, and ladders.
Ben liked Jim, but at the moment, only one desire occupied his mind: kicking his ass._


----------



## cinderblock (Jun 24, 2015)

Thanks to everybody for the valuable feedback.

This was a sentence I stumbled upon that sounded bizarre, but I wanted to know why, be it grammatic or stylistic, and whether or not there was a way to salvage it without using the word "had" twice in one sentence (not that I mind). I rely on the word "fail" quite often, so I try my best to save it, as well by coming up with different ways to phrase something, even if it ends up complicating the sentence.  

I thought of a simple way of salvaging it. 
Each passing second made it evident, the methodology had resonated *with contrast.

*I think I'll settle for the following. This is the full paragraph.*She broke away and checked the time on her phone. Each passing second made it ever evident, the guest speaker’s impactful outlook and prudential methodology had resonated with contrast. Where is my enterprising outlook? she asked herself. My positive enlightenment? My upright composure? *


----------



## John Oberon (Jun 25, 2015)

Just delete "had"; you don't need it. When "had" is coupled with a verb, you can just delete it 90% of the time to no detriment.

To me, that paragraph is WAY overwritten. "Impactful outlook", "resonated with contrast", "upright composure"...I don't know what any of that means, but it sure is high-sounding, lol. Also, "prudential" is a word, but I typically use it to describe general circumstances, not a specific thing:

_His decision to run for office was prudent.
The whole campaign was prudential.
_


----------



## Sam (Jun 25, 2015)

Agree with John. 

Cinder, that paragraph is as flowery as a botanical garden. I have no idea what you're trying to say. There's nothing wrong with using 'prudential' and 'enterprising', and other such ten-cent words, but you have to know how and when to use them. What it seems you're doing is building sentences around those words, or using them because they sound 'writerly' and not because you understand what they add to the sentence. 

Don't use a word for the sake of it. Use it because it adds meaning that is otherwise missing.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 25, 2015)

_made it ever evident the methodology had not resonated with her _

This somewhat convoluted predicate does not, it seems to me, require any punctuation. It also does not seem to lend itself very well to extenuation, so the fact that this non-resonance is shared ought probably to be separated with its own subject and predicate, either with a conjunction or a new sentence. ------------ Making _each passing second_ the original subject seems weak to me, when the methodology and its shared lack of resonance is evidently the main topic. Put the _seconds_ in a subordinate position perhaps. _The methodology did not resonate with her or her co-workers, as each passing moment made more evident._ Consistency here seems to me better illustrated than pronounced; I would just leave it out. ---------- Except in lists, using semi-colons only to replace the coordinating conjunction _and_ when it's joining the independent clauses of a compound sentence makes for perfectly defensible and sufficient punctuation. All other non-standard uses of semi-colons can be very satisfactorily replaced by commas or colons.


----------



## cinderblock (Jun 25, 2015)

You need to read what happened prior to the paragraph to understand that those words do serve a purpose.

I think we're too quick to judge writing based on what we can immediately understand or can't, but we must assume two things. First and obvious, this passage is taken out of context (if you want to read my current 68,000-word manuscript, all ya have to do is shoot me a PM and I'll send it over). Second, not every style needs to be easily digestible. 

I plan on experimenting with plenty of different styles in the future, but one thing I've learned from my reading, is that there really isn't one definitive style. It seems to be a matter of preference.

Look at some of the most acclaimed works. You need scholarly reference books to understand them, because they're notoriously difficult to figure out. Hell, Finnegans Wake was deliberately designed to obscure the heck out of everyone, and it's lauded as Joyce's magnum opus.


----------



## cinderblock (Jun 25, 2015)

ppsage said:


> _made it ever evident the methodology had not resonated with her _
> 
> This somewhat convoluted predicate does not, it seems to me, require any punctuation. It also does not seem to lend itself very well to extenuation, so the fact that this non-resonance is shared ought probably to be separated with its own subject and predicate, either with a conjunction or a new sentence. ------------ Making _each passing second_ the original subject seems weak to me, when the methodology and its shared lack of resonance is evidently the main topic. Put the _seconds_ in a subordinate position perhaps. _The methodology did not resonate with her or her co-workers, as each passing moment made more evident._ Consistency here seems to me better illustrated than pronounced; I would just leave it out. ---------- Except in lists, using semi-colons only to replace the coordinating conjunction _and_ when it's joining the independent clauses of a compound sentence makes for perfectly defensible and sufficient punctuation. All other non-standard uses of semi-colons can be very satisfactorily replaced by commas or colons.



Wow, that's an ultra-technical breakdown. Reason why I started out with "time," or made it the "subject," as you say, is because the preceding sentence had to do with time. It was a better transition. The paragraph prior also was themed on time.


----------



## John Oberon (Jun 26, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> You need to read what happened prior to the paragraph to understand that those words do serve a purpose.
> 
> I think we're too quick to judge writing based on what we can immediately understand or can't, but we must assume two things. First and obvious, this passage is taken out of context (if you want to read my current 68,000-word manuscript, all ya have to do is shoot me a PM and I'll send it over). Second, not every style needs to be easily digestible.
> 
> ...



I'm one who hates Joyce. I think he was a good writer technically, but an awful storyteller. A reader shouldn't need to part with a pound of flesh to gain some meaning from writing. I feel the same way about Faulkner and James, for the most part. How is it good writing when 95% of readers have no clue what you're saying? I think good writing slides into your mind smooth and easy with barely a wobble, and it's peppered with clever language that makes the ride curvy and fun. With Joyce and others, I feel like I need a winch to pull me through an uphill labyrinth. I studied them in college, but boy, I sure never figured out why they were considered great writers.


----------



## Sam (Jun 26, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> You need to read what happened prior to the paragraph to understand that those words do serve a purpose.
> 
> I think we're too quick to judge writing based on what we can immediately understand or can't, but we must assume two things. First and obvious, this passage is taken out of context (if you want to read my current 68,000-word manuscript, all ya have to do is shoot me a PM and I'll send it over). Second, not every style needs to be easily digestible.



Depends on who you're writing for. 

Sure, we could all go down the route of hi-falutin words and esoteric language, and that's okay if you're writing for academics or language aficionados, but if you're writing for your everyday run-of-the-mill reader, using words they don't understand is the equivalent of trying to fathom a genius-level scientist speaking about cold fusion.



> I plan on experimenting with plenty of different styles in the future, but one thing I've learned from my reading, is that there really isn't one definitive style. It seems to be a matter of preference.
> 
> Look at some of the most acclaimed works. You need scholarly reference books to understand them, because they're notoriously difficult to figure out. Hell, Finnegans Wake was deliberately designed to obscure the heck out of everyone, and it's lauded as Joyce's magnum opus.



No, it isn't. 

Joyce's _magnum opus _is _Ulysses. _Always has been, always will be, but that's beside the point. 

Do you know how many readers I've met who've read either of those books? I could count the number on one hand. Do you know why? Because they're so difficult to understand, let alone read, and that defeats the entire purpose of writing.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 26, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> You need to read what happened prior to the paragraph to understand that those words do serve a purpose.
> 
> I think we're too quick to judge writing based on what we can immediately understand or can't, but we must assume two things. First and obvious, this passage is taken out of context (if you want to read my current 68,000-word manuscript, all ya have to do is shoot me a PM and I'll send it over). Second, not every style needs to be easily digestible.



Who's "too quick to judge?" If you are talking about those critiquing your work, that's possibly true. If you mean readers in general, then it is not true at all. The reader is the ultimate judge of what works and what does not, and many readers -- in fact I'd guess it is most readers -- will not struggle to decipher a convoluted, or complex, style. But, if your target audience is the smaller sub-set of readers who enjoy that style, then feel free to use it. If your intent is to get an agent or publisher, you should remember that they are looking for work which is commercially viable, with the broadest possible appeal. 



> I plan on experimenting with plenty of different styles in the future, but one thing I've learned from my reading, is that there really isn't one definitive style. It seems to be a matter of preference.



Good. That sort of experimentation helps us grow.



> Look at some of the most acclaimed works. You need scholarly reference books to understand them, because they're notoriously difficult to figure out. Hell, Finnegans Wake was deliberately designed to obscure the heck out of everyone, and it's lauded as Joyce's magnum opus.



The secret to achieving the sort of success you write about here, is not in creating complexity and obfuscation, but in being true to your own voice. No one can achieve 'acclaim' by writing like Faulkner, Joyce, James, McCarthy, or anyone else. They've achieved what they have by being faithful to their own voice, not by copying others. The bit you shared above doesn't feel natural to me. It feels forced. I say that because some of the word combinations simply don't work. For instance: "ever evident" really doesn't mean anything. 'Ever more evident' would indicate a dawning realization (which is what I think you mean), or it was simply 'evident' which would make the "Each passing second" superfluous. Complex language is okay, but the writer needs to know what he means to say, and know how the words he is using will convey that message. It has to do more than sound good.


----------



## Blade (Jun 26, 2015)

Kevin said:


> colon or semi-colon?





John Oberon said:


> I think I could make a case for either one, but I tend to use a semi-colon when the idea coming after the semi-colon expands, specifies, or is closely related to the idea coming before the semi-colon (though not necessarily the same idea), and it's expressed in a complete sentence. I use the semi-colon when I want the reader to treat the two ideas as one complete thought. I use a period if I want to separate the ideas.



I would say that this would definitely be a semi-colon situation given that it is followed by a 'complete sentence' and not a list. As far as I am concerned colons are only rarely the proper punctuation.:cool2:


----------



## John Oberon (Jun 26, 2015)

Sam said:


> Do you know how many readers I've met who've read either of those books? I could count the number on one hand. Do you know why? Because they're so difficult to understand, let alone read, and that defeats the entire purpose of writing.



Now you know another person, but I sure don't brag about it. Blech.


----------



## cinderblock (Jun 27, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Who's "too quick to judge?" If you are talking about those critiquing your work, that's possibly true. If you mean readers in general, then it is not true at all. The reader is the ultimate judge of what works and what does not, and many readers -- in fact I'd guess it is most readers -- will not struggle to decipher a convoluted, or complex, style. But, if your target audience is the smaller sub-set of readers who enjoy that style, then feel free to use it. If your intent is to get an agent or publisher, you should remember that they are looking for work which is commercially viable, with the broadest possible appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I understand.

I guess my object isn't to cast a really wide net. My writing is esoteric. I understand that too. 

You're right that I haven't found my voice. Hence, the ongoing experimentation. My stories are really complicated, so I'm always looking for the best way to tell it.


----------



## cinderblock (Jun 27, 2015)

Sam said:


> Depends on who you're writing for.
> 
> Sure, we could all go down the route of hi-falutin words and esoteric language, and that's okay if you're writing for academics or language aficionados, but if you're writing for your everyday run-of-the-mill reader, using words they don't understand is the equivalent of trying to fathom a genius-level scientist speaking about cold fusion.
> 
> ...



Well, I know Joyce himself considered it his magnum opus, and I've heard it mentioned several other times from other sources. I guess it's up for debate.

Aside from that, I get what you're saying. I'm kind of having an identity crisis. Always have. Always will.


----------



## cinderblock (Jun 27, 2015)

John Oberon said:


> Now you know another person, but I sure don't brag about it. Blech.



Have you ever thought of giving it another go?

I don't think the majority of people in college are ready for such classics. Just ask yourself what you were into when you were into in college.

I remember when Lost came out, it was revolutionary. I tried watching it recently, and it severely fails the test of time. One-dimensional saints guilt-tripping over spilt milk. It's this epic, soul searching cryfest over nothing.


----------



## John Oberon (Jun 29, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> Have you ever thought of giving it another go?
> 
> I don't think the majority of people in college are ready for such classics. Just ask yourself what you were into when you were into in college.
> 
> I remember when Lost came out, it was revolutionary. I tried watching it recently, and it severely fails the test of time. One-dimensional saints guilt-tripping over spilt milk. It's this epic, soul searching cryfest over nothing.



I was 23 when I started college, much more mature than the typical freshman. I studied Joyce when I was about 25. My opinion hasn't changed in all these years. Blech.

I saw a few episodes of Lost. "Revolutionary" is hardly the word I'd use for it. "Incoherent" is much more apt.


----------



## scrub puller (Jun 29, 2015)

Yair . . . .

*cinderblock

*


> My stories are really complicated, so I'm always looking for the best way to tell it.



I was told many years ago there is no such thing as a 'complicated story' but, unfortunately, there are complicated writers.

Personally I believe there are 'story tellers' and then writers who  use convoluted language, pacing and construction . . . write the way you choose.


Cheers.


----------



## cinderblock (Jun 29, 2015)

John Oberon said:


> I was 23 when I started college, much more mature than the typical freshman. I studied Joyce when I was about 25. My opinion hasn't changed in all these years. Blech.
> 
> I saw a few episodes of Lost. "Revolutionary" is hardly the word I'd use for it. "Incoherent" is much more apt.



I personally think even 25 is too young. But then again, I was an idiot at 25, so I'm drawing from my own experience. If you were one of those students who understood all the poems and classical literature in school, growing up, more power to ya. I wasn't. 

Everybody still praises the first season of Lost. I find the pacing extremely slow, all the crying and screaming to be emo, and the dialogue generic.


----------



## John Oberon (Jun 29, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> I personally think even 25 is too young. But then again, I was an idiot at 25, so I'm drawing from my own experience. If you were one of those students who understood all the poems and classical literature in school, growing up, more power to ya. I wasn't.
> 
> Everybody still praises the first season of Lost. I find the pacing extremely slow, all the crying and screaming to be emo, and the dialogue generic.



I've always had a facility for reading and writing and academics. Of course, there were plenty of other areas where I was an idiot, lol, but writing and academics, no.

I think I watched the first two episodes of Lost and half of the third and surrendered. I exercise a pretty low tolerance for nonsense or incoherence. I remember thinking, "What the HECK was that?"


----------



## cinderblock (Jul 1, 2015)

scrub puller said:


> Yair . . . .
> 
> *cinderblock
> 
> ...



That is very true and very profound. 

I do explore abstract themes and theories in my science fiction. Theories most people would not understand, even if I were to explain it to them casually in person.

Also for this book, I used a lot of imagery, symbolism, metaphors, double/triple entendres, wordplay, etc. On that, I guess you can call that complication by the author. But it was how I thought the story was best presented, without watering down its effects for the purpose of mass consumption. My goal is to repackage complicated philosophical matters and present it in a manner that is hopefully enjoyable and easier to appreciate. It is the opposite of Lewis Carol or James Joyce, who have simple stories that they deliberately complicate.


----------



## scrub puller (Jul 1, 2015)

Yair . . . 

Gotcha *cinderblock.*

That's the joy of writing, there is no right or wrong way, we language how we choose . . . one of the reasons I enjoy this forum.

Cheers.


----------

