Rosemary Cole's Blog: The Sweet Torture of Writing - Posts Tagged "grammar-tips"
Grammar Peeves #3
I see misuse and abuse of the English language every day, and every time, I cringe. Just as when you see an animal being abused, you want to run up and rescue the poor bit of language, fix it up and make it healthy again. I wish we had a SPEL to report these abuses to - a Society for the Protection of the English Language!
The worst part is that it constantly threatens to become accepted - mangled, broken rules replacing the old ways. Okay, yes, language does have to be flexible to some degree and change over time with changes in usage. But do you really want to see the following misuses adopted into our beautiful language?
What I'm thinking of today is the way the tenses of SIMPLE PAST and PAST PERFECT have been getting horribly mixed up. I've seen it mostly in new authors' manuscripts and in independent authors' published (and poorly edited) books. Are you one of these? It's a NO-NO!
"The end-of-class bell rung." No! Past tense: should be RANG.
"She sung a hymn." Nope. Past tense: should be SANG. Or past perfect: She HAD SUNG.
I saw this next one often from doctors and other healthcare professionals, believe it or not, when I used to type medical and psychiatric reports:
"He had drank alcohol over the weekend."
Here we have horribly mixed tenses. If you want simple past, it should be: He drank alcohol. If you want past perfect, it should be: he HAD DRUNK alcohol.
He drinks
He drank
He had drunk
She sings
She sang
She had sung
The bell rings
The bell rang
The bell had rung
So as an author or writer, when should you use past vs past perfect? Authors constantly do this incorrectly, but as many fiction novels are written in the past tense, it's even more important to get it right.
Okay, the simple past is just that - simple. It's for things that happened before now.
Let's say that John is our main character. He's going to meet someone in town, fall in love and have an adventure or whatever.
"John woke late, got up and shuffled over to the refrigerator. He was feeling rough--just a hair of the dog was what he needed. But there was no beer left. He got in his car and drove into town to buy some more."
Okay, pretty clear so far. Except what if you want to talk about stuff that happened BEFORE John's past? All this stuff happening with John is happening in the past. So in a way, the past is John's "now." So if you want to refer to something that happened BEFORE John woke up, what tense do you use? If you use simple past, it could get mixed up with the "now" past, so to speak. The reader might get confused as to what happened when.
"John woke up late, got up and shuffled over to the refrigerator. He drank a lot of beer and was feeling rough--just a hair of the dog was what he needed. But there was no beer left. He got in his car and drove into town to buy some more."
Reading that, you're not sure if John drank beer in the morning when he got up, or was he referring to a previous episode?
This is when the past perfect comes in. It's for a past that happened BEFORE another past.
"John woke up late, got up and shuffled over to the refrigerator. He had drunk a lot of beer and was feeling rough--just a hair of the dog was what he needed. But there was no beer left. He got in his car and drove into town to buy some more."
See how that clarifies it? How about this one:
"John spotted Mary walking to town and pulled over to pick her up. They dated often but he wasn't sure how he felt about her."
With this wording, you're not sure if they had been dating at one time or were still dating now. Just slipping in the word "had" before "dated" places it firmly in the past before this one.
There are clue words that tell you when to use past perfect. These are words/phrases like: last week, last year, before, until now, previously, etc. In general, use past perfect for things that happened before the "current" past events.
"I walked to the library, then remembered I HAD left my books at home."
"Driving home, I passed my friend on the street and waved. That was odd - I HAD passed her on my way out, as well."
I hope this helps.
I'd love to hear any questions or comments!
The worst part is that it constantly threatens to become accepted - mangled, broken rules replacing the old ways. Okay, yes, language does have to be flexible to some degree and change over time with changes in usage. But do you really want to see the following misuses adopted into our beautiful language?
What I'm thinking of today is the way the tenses of SIMPLE PAST and PAST PERFECT have been getting horribly mixed up. I've seen it mostly in new authors' manuscripts and in independent authors' published (and poorly edited) books. Are you one of these? It's a NO-NO!
"The end-of-class bell rung." No! Past tense: should be RANG.
"She sung a hymn." Nope. Past tense: should be SANG. Or past perfect: She HAD SUNG.
I saw this next one often from doctors and other healthcare professionals, believe it or not, when I used to type medical and psychiatric reports:
"He had drank alcohol over the weekend."
Here we have horribly mixed tenses. If you want simple past, it should be: He drank alcohol. If you want past perfect, it should be: he HAD DRUNK alcohol.
He drinks
He drank
He had drunk
She sings
She sang
She had sung
The bell rings
The bell rang
The bell had rung
So as an author or writer, when should you use past vs past perfect? Authors constantly do this incorrectly, but as many fiction novels are written in the past tense, it's even more important to get it right.
Okay, the simple past is just that - simple. It's for things that happened before now.
Let's say that John is our main character. He's going to meet someone in town, fall in love and have an adventure or whatever.
"John woke late, got up and shuffled over to the refrigerator. He was feeling rough--just a hair of the dog was what he needed. But there was no beer left. He got in his car and drove into town to buy some more."
Okay, pretty clear so far. Except what if you want to talk about stuff that happened BEFORE John's past? All this stuff happening with John is happening in the past. So in a way, the past is John's "now." So if you want to refer to something that happened BEFORE John woke up, what tense do you use? If you use simple past, it could get mixed up with the "now" past, so to speak. The reader might get confused as to what happened when.
"John woke up late, got up and shuffled over to the refrigerator. He drank a lot of beer and was feeling rough--just a hair of the dog was what he needed. But there was no beer left. He got in his car and drove into town to buy some more."
Reading that, you're not sure if John drank beer in the morning when he got up, or was he referring to a previous episode?
This is when the past perfect comes in. It's for a past that happened BEFORE another past.
"John woke up late, got up and shuffled over to the refrigerator. He had drunk a lot of beer and was feeling rough--just a hair of the dog was what he needed. But there was no beer left. He got in his car and drove into town to buy some more."
See how that clarifies it? How about this one:
"John spotted Mary walking to town and pulled over to pick her up. They dated often but he wasn't sure how he felt about her."
With this wording, you're not sure if they had been dating at one time or were still dating now. Just slipping in the word "had" before "dated" places it firmly in the past before this one.
There are clue words that tell you when to use past perfect. These are words/phrases like: last week, last year, before, until now, previously, etc. In general, use past perfect for things that happened before the "current" past events.
"I walked to the library, then remembered I HAD left my books at home."
"Driving home, I passed my friend on the street and waved. That was odd - I HAD passed her on my way out, as well."
I hope this helps.
I'd love to hear any questions or comments!
Grammar Peeves #4
It's me, Rosemary, back again with another grammar peeve. Every day (note: 2 words) I see instances of word misuse. Bloodied phrases and abused words, broken and sprawled at the scene of the crime… which more often than not can be found in magazines, on the Internet, on advertisements and notices, and in SELF-PUBLISHED BOOKS BY NEW AUTHORS.
Have you committed any of these heinous acts? Watch out, the Grammar Police are coming for you!
Here are a few of the most shocking types of word crimes: the ones that involve homophones [homo = same; phone = sound]:
It's not PEAKED my interest or PEEKED my interest, it’s PIQUED my interest.
I didn’t PEAK around the door, I PEEKED around the door.
It’s not POURED over the map, it’s PORED over the map.
You’re not stronger THEN him, you’re stronger THAN him.
You steer your horse by the REINS; the king REIGNS over you. And it RAINS a lot on the plains.
You HOARD your gold; the barbarians form a great HORDE.
You take a BREATH, and you also BREATHE (note the “e” on the end of the word, which often seems to be missing).
SHOULD OF, COULD OF, WOULD OF should of been—er, have been—SHOULD HAVE, COULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE.
And now to get into some other infractions:
You go to the gym EVERY DAY, but you wear your EVERYDAY outfit. It’s only one word when it’s an adjective, describing something. Otherwise, it’s two words.
Here’s one that really irks me: I don’t LAY down, I LIE down. But I LAY an object on the table. Granted, this one can be really confusing. Lie and lay are two different verbs.
TO LIE is an action a person can take. (We’ll leave out of this discussion the meaning of telling an untruth). I lie down on the floor. The verb conjugation is as follows:
Present: lie
Past perfect: LAY
Present participle: lying
Past participle: lain
TO LAY is something one does TO or WITH something else. Example: I lay the book on the table.
Present: LAY
Past perfect: laid
Present participle: laying
Past participle: laid
What makes it rather confusing is that the past tense of lie is the same word as the present tense of lay: LAY. To help clarify this, here are more examples for you.
TO LIE:
I lie on the bed. He is lying on the floor.
Lie down on the ground, now!
She lay on the couch last night.
The kids had lain on the ground last week.
TO LAY:
Present: I lay the blanket on the sand. The kids are laying the table for lunch.
Lay your gun on the ground, now!
He laid his gun on the ground.
She had laid out all the instruments before the operation.
Note that all of these “to lay” examples involve doing something WITH or TO something else. That’s because TO LAY is a TRANSITIVE verb, whereby action is transferred to an object. Therefore an object is always required. You make a bed, you lay the table.
And that's it for this episode of Grammar Peeves. Hope it helps!
Have you committed any of these heinous acts? Watch out, the Grammar Police are coming for you!
Here are a few of the most shocking types of word crimes: the ones that involve homophones [homo = same; phone = sound]:
It's not PEAKED my interest or PEEKED my interest, it’s PIQUED my interest.
I didn’t PEAK around the door, I PEEKED around the door.
It’s not POURED over the map, it’s PORED over the map.
You’re not stronger THEN him, you’re stronger THAN him.
You steer your horse by the REINS; the king REIGNS over you. And it RAINS a lot on the plains.
You HOARD your gold; the barbarians form a great HORDE.
You take a BREATH, and you also BREATHE (note the “e” on the end of the word, which often seems to be missing).
SHOULD OF, COULD OF, WOULD OF should of been—er, have been—SHOULD HAVE, COULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE.
And now to get into some other infractions:
You go to the gym EVERY DAY, but you wear your EVERYDAY outfit. It’s only one word when it’s an adjective, describing something. Otherwise, it’s two words.
Here’s one that really irks me: I don’t LAY down, I LIE down. But I LAY an object on the table. Granted, this one can be really confusing. Lie and lay are two different verbs.
TO LIE is an action a person can take. (We’ll leave out of this discussion the meaning of telling an untruth). I lie down on the floor. The verb conjugation is as follows:
Present: lie
Past perfect: LAY
Present participle: lying
Past participle: lain
TO LAY is something one does TO or WITH something else. Example: I lay the book on the table.
Present: LAY
Past perfect: laid
Present participle: laying
Past participle: laid
What makes it rather confusing is that the past tense of lie is the same word as the present tense of lay: LAY. To help clarify this, here are more examples for you.
TO LIE:
I lie on the bed. He is lying on the floor.
Lie down on the ground, now!
She lay on the couch last night.
The kids had lain on the ground last week.
TO LAY:
Present: I lay the blanket on the sand. The kids are laying the table for lunch.
Lay your gun on the ground, now!
He laid his gun on the ground.
She had laid out all the instruments before the operation.
Note that all of these “to lay” examples involve doing something WITH or TO something else. That’s because TO LAY is a TRANSITIVE verb, whereby action is transferred to an object. Therefore an object is always required. You make a bed, you lay the table.
And that's it for this episode of Grammar Peeves. Hope it helps!
Grammar Peeves #5
DING-dong.
“Can I help you?”
“Good afternoon, ma’am—Grammar Police. We need to ask you a couple of questions about an alleged crime that occurred at this address last night. May we come in?”
“Oh—er, yes. Come in. What’s this all about?”
“Ma’am, did you or did you not use the phrase: ‘they sprung up from behind the furniture’ in an email last night when describing a surprise birthday party your friends threw for you? And did you not later on send the following tweet: ‘I got 27 present’s’?”
“You’ve been monitoring my internet activity? You don’t have the right to do that!”
“We have the authority under the Language Security Act when certain key words and phrases are flagged by our computers. Now will you answer the questions? Just the facts, ma’am.”
“What about my rights?”
“I think we’d better finish this conversation downtown, ma’am. Will you come with us?”
Okay, so maybe this little fictional scenario is a bit extreme. I certainly don’t advocate any such rigid, iron enforcement of grammar rules (or anything else for that matter) but I am deeply concerned about the erosion of our language. I implore all of you to do your little bit—be brave enough to use proper English when all around you, others are slaughtering it word by word. Everyone seems to agree that it’s the computer era that is responsible for this, but I have noticed, since finally joining the twenty-first century and getting a smartphone, that when texting it’s very easy to simply select most words, properly spelled out, from the suggestion bar. So why do ppl still insist on usg brokin, mispelt English? The phone even puts in apostrophes for us, which even I probably wouldn’t bother with otherwise *hangs head and self-flagellates for a minute*.
Okay, enough of that. On with Grammar Peeves #5!
In Grammar Peeves #2, I addressed the issue of punctuating dialogue properly. The following set of examples says it all quite handily:
"It’s time," Jack said, "to get to work on our plan."
"It's time to go," Jack said. "There's nothing more to do here."
"It's time to go; there's nothing more to do here."
The next big issue for writers when it comes to dialogue is proper paragraph construction.
Here’s the main rule: The actions and the dialogue of the SAME ACTOR (i.e., Jack in the above examples) almost always go in the SAME PARAGRAPH. This is not a hard and fast rule, however. If you prefer to start an actor’s next words or actions in the next paragraph for, say, emphasis, or because the actor is changing the subject, that’s fine. But here’s what I see over and over in newbie writing:
Jack peered over at Jane.
“I wouldn’t do it that way,” he said.
Jane looked up in surprise.
“Why not?”
Jack sighed and looked out the window.
“It’s going to get you in big trouble.”
“Why?”
Jack smiled.
“That’s for me to know and you to find out.”
He shrugged mysteriously and left the room.
There seems to be a widespread belief out there that everything needs to go on its own line. But it ain’t necessarily so!
If you pay close attention in that example, you can suss out who is saying and doing what. But the reader shouldn’t have to do this. The reader shouldn’t notice anything but the ideas, impressions and feelings the author is trying to evoke. The story, in other words.
Let me rewrite the above example using the paragraph rule I introduced above.
Jack peered at Jane. "I wouldn't do it that way," he said.
Jane looked up in surprise. "Why not?"
Jack sighed and looked out the window. "It's going to get you in big trouble."
"Why?"
"That's for me to know and you to find out." He stood up, giving her a mysterious smile, and left the room.
Notice that I left the dialogue tag off Jane's Why? You can do that if there are only two people speaking and the conversation is moving back and forth between them, but not with a group, and only when it is instantly clear who is speaking. Otherwise, you need a tag or some kind of hint as to who is talking.
You might have spotted another little trick I used: The action of a speaker in the same paragraph can substitute for the dialogue tag. Since it was Jack who stood up immediately after speaking, you know it was he who spoke.
On the other hand, I often see writers bunch up different characters’ dialogue and actions in the same paragraph. The general rule is: If a new actor speaks or acts, put it in a new paragraph.
The two Labrador puppies tumbled together in the hay, mock-fighting. Chocolate pulled free and cocked an ear. “The farmer’s coming!” he exclaimed. His sister, Vanilla, looked out. “Is he bringing us a bone?”
As soon as Vanilla acted or spoke, the writer should have created a new paragraph for her. Keep her actions and words all together in the same paragraph.
The two Labrador puppies tumbled together in the hay, mock-fighting.
Chocolate pulled free and cocked an ear. “The farmer’s coming!” he exclaimed.
His sister, Vanilla, looked out. “Is he bringing us a bone?”
You may notice that I started a new paragraph for Chocolate. To me, this is an individual actor starting something new; thus, a new paragraph is called for. But you don’t necessarily have to do that. As always, it’s not a hard and fast rule and there are exceptions. If you want to express multiple quick reactions to something, for example. You don’t have to sweat this rule; if it feels right to keep it together, do it. You’re the author. Just try to keep a single character's words and actions together in the same paragraph.
Again, this is not about making sure the reader knows. Of course most of them can figure it all out from the text. The point is, you don’t want to distract them, not even for one second. This takes the reader out of the story and kills the pace.
And that's it for now! If you have any questions about dialogue, or any grammar questions at all, fire away in the comments (this link will take you back), and I’ll do my best to answer.
Until next time, happy reading (and writing)!
“Can I help you?”
“Good afternoon, ma’am—Grammar Police. We need to ask you a couple of questions about an alleged crime that occurred at this address last night. May we come in?”
“Oh—er, yes. Come in. What’s this all about?”
“Ma’am, did you or did you not use the phrase: ‘they sprung up from behind the furniture’ in an email last night when describing a surprise birthday party your friends threw for you? And did you not later on send the following tweet: ‘I got 27 present’s’?”
“You’ve been monitoring my internet activity? You don’t have the right to do that!”
“We have the authority under the Language Security Act when certain key words and phrases are flagged by our computers. Now will you answer the questions? Just the facts, ma’am.”
“What about my rights?”
“I think we’d better finish this conversation downtown, ma’am. Will you come with us?”
Okay, so maybe this little fictional scenario is a bit extreme. I certainly don’t advocate any such rigid, iron enforcement of grammar rules (or anything else for that matter) but I am deeply concerned about the erosion of our language. I implore all of you to do your little bit—be brave enough to use proper English when all around you, others are slaughtering it word by word. Everyone seems to agree that it’s the computer era that is responsible for this, but I have noticed, since finally joining the twenty-first century and getting a smartphone, that when texting it’s very easy to simply select most words, properly spelled out, from the suggestion bar. So why do ppl still insist on usg brokin, mispelt English? The phone even puts in apostrophes for us, which even I probably wouldn’t bother with otherwise *hangs head and self-flagellates for a minute*.
Okay, enough of that. On with Grammar Peeves #5!
In Grammar Peeves #2, I addressed the issue of punctuating dialogue properly. The following set of examples says it all quite handily:
"It’s time," Jack said, "to get to work on our plan."
"It's time to go," Jack said. "There's nothing more to do here."
"It's time to go; there's nothing more to do here."
The next big issue for writers when it comes to dialogue is proper paragraph construction.
Here’s the main rule: The actions and the dialogue of the SAME ACTOR (i.e., Jack in the above examples) almost always go in the SAME PARAGRAPH. This is not a hard and fast rule, however. If you prefer to start an actor’s next words or actions in the next paragraph for, say, emphasis, or because the actor is changing the subject, that’s fine. But here’s what I see over and over in newbie writing:
Jack peered over at Jane.
“I wouldn’t do it that way,” he said.
Jane looked up in surprise.
“Why not?”
Jack sighed and looked out the window.
“It’s going to get you in big trouble.”
“Why?”
Jack smiled.
“That’s for me to know and you to find out.”
He shrugged mysteriously and left the room.
There seems to be a widespread belief out there that everything needs to go on its own line. But it ain’t necessarily so!
If you pay close attention in that example, you can suss out who is saying and doing what. But the reader shouldn’t have to do this. The reader shouldn’t notice anything but the ideas, impressions and feelings the author is trying to evoke. The story, in other words.
Let me rewrite the above example using the paragraph rule I introduced above.
Jack peered at Jane. "I wouldn't do it that way," he said.
Jane looked up in surprise. "Why not?"
Jack sighed and looked out the window. "It's going to get you in big trouble."
"Why?"
"That's for me to know and you to find out." He stood up, giving her a mysterious smile, and left the room.
Notice that I left the dialogue tag off Jane's Why? You can do that if there are only two people speaking and the conversation is moving back and forth between them, but not with a group, and only when it is instantly clear who is speaking. Otherwise, you need a tag or some kind of hint as to who is talking.
You might have spotted another little trick I used: The action of a speaker in the same paragraph can substitute for the dialogue tag. Since it was Jack who stood up immediately after speaking, you know it was he who spoke.
On the other hand, I often see writers bunch up different characters’ dialogue and actions in the same paragraph. The general rule is: If a new actor speaks or acts, put it in a new paragraph.
The two Labrador puppies tumbled together in the hay, mock-fighting. Chocolate pulled free and cocked an ear. “The farmer’s coming!” he exclaimed. His sister, Vanilla, looked out. “Is he bringing us a bone?”
As soon as Vanilla acted or spoke, the writer should have created a new paragraph for her. Keep her actions and words all together in the same paragraph.
The two Labrador puppies tumbled together in the hay, mock-fighting.
Chocolate pulled free and cocked an ear. “The farmer’s coming!” he exclaimed.
His sister, Vanilla, looked out. “Is he bringing us a bone?”
You may notice that I started a new paragraph for Chocolate. To me, this is an individual actor starting something new; thus, a new paragraph is called for. But you don’t necessarily have to do that. As always, it’s not a hard and fast rule and there are exceptions. If you want to express multiple quick reactions to something, for example. You don’t have to sweat this rule; if it feels right to keep it together, do it. You’re the author. Just try to keep a single character's words and actions together in the same paragraph.
Again, this is not about making sure the reader knows. Of course most of them can figure it all out from the text. The point is, you don’t want to distract them, not even for one second. This takes the reader out of the story and kills the pace.
And that's it for now! If you have any questions about dialogue, or any grammar questions at all, fire away in the comments (this link will take you back), and I’ll do my best to answer.
Until next time, happy reading (and writing)!
Grammar Peeves #6
Have you ever noticed a flock of birds flying, or a school of fish swimming? They all seem to change direction simultaneously, even though you didn't hear one of them call out, "Okay, guys, left on three!" Yet they do it with such perfect coordination that not one wingtip (or fin) bumps another. Somehow they all just know.
This seems to be the way our language behaves, as well. It's as if there was some huge, secret conference at which everyone decided that we would start using certain words or phrases in a certain way. But there was no conference. Somehow, everybody just started doing it a new way.
Problem is, "everybody" doesn't seem to know the new way is wrong.
This brings me to my next grammar peeve, which is one of these sea changes that just happened in the last few years.
"People that don't know about this don't know grammar."
WRONG!!!
It's "People WHO don't know about this..."
There are two basic types of relative pronouns. The first type (that, which) refers to THINGS.
The car THAT is the fastest will win.
The other type refers to people.
The runner WHO is fastest will win.
When did people suddenly become things? Because everywhere, constantly, I see THAT used to refer to a person. I even see it used like this: "The person that..." when it should be "The person who..."
Take these famous quotes:
He who dares, wins.
He who laughs last, laughs best.
Imagine them with "that" instead of "who." Doesn't work too well, does it?
Or even from Harry Potter: He Who Must Not Be Named.
Wouldn't it sound silly as He That Must Not Be Named?
It's the same thing with using "lay" instead of "lie." Suddenly everyone, including the writers of a medical health pamphlet that I came across, is using lay instead of lie. To quote a popular song:
If I lay here (should be lie)
If I just lay here (wrong again)
Will you lie with me and just forget the world (got it right that time, mate)
Well, I feel better now that I've gotten that grammar peeve off my chest. Thanks for listening!
Rosemary
This seems to be the way our language behaves, as well. It's as if there was some huge, secret conference at which everyone decided that we would start using certain words or phrases in a certain way. But there was no conference. Somehow, everybody just started doing it a new way.
Problem is, "everybody" doesn't seem to know the new way is wrong.
This brings me to my next grammar peeve, which is one of these sea changes that just happened in the last few years.
"People that don't know about this don't know grammar."
WRONG!!!
It's "People WHO don't know about this..."
There are two basic types of relative pronouns. The first type (that, which) refers to THINGS.
The car THAT is the fastest will win.
The other type refers to people.
The runner WHO is fastest will win.
When did people suddenly become things? Because everywhere, constantly, I see THAT used to refer to a person. I even see it used like this: "The person that..." when it should be "The person who..."
Take these famous quotes:
He who dares, wins.
He who laughs last, laughs best.
Imagine them with "that" instead of "who." Doesn't work too well, does it?
Or even from Harry Potter: He Who Must Not Be Named.
Wouldn't it sound silly as He That Must Not Be Named?
It's the same thing with using "lay" instead of "lie." Suddenly everyone, including the writers of a medical health pamphlet that I came across, is using lay instead of lie. To quote a popular song:
If I lay here (should be lie)
If I just lay here (wrong again)
Will you lie with me and just forget the world (got it right that time, mate)
Well, I feel better now that I've gotten that grammar peeve off my chest. Thanks for listening!
Rosemary
The Sweet Torture of Writing
This is my blog about the experience of trying to become an author. Writing is something we aspiring authors are driven to do. We love it, and at times we hate it. It's painful and enjoyable all at on
...more
- Rosemary Cole's profile
- 35 followers
