Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Grammar help.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:20 / 14.01.04

I'm looking for online resources to help me improve my rather weak English grammar, prefarably one offering some kind of (free or inexpensive) tutorial. Relentless Googlage has turned up many sites, but none of them are quite what I want.

I'm interested in both British and American grammar help, since I punt out quite a lot of work to publications based in the States.

Jub

10:47 / 14.01.04

The Internet Grammar of English is an online course in English grammar written primarily for university undergraduates. However, we hope that it will be useful to everyone who is interested in the English language. IGE does not assume any prior knowledge of grammar

This site looks okay.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:30 / 14.01.04

Thanks Jub, that looks great!

grant

17:56 / 14.01.04

Useful adjunct:
the Strunk & White.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:36 / 14.01.04

I am probably adding nothing, but I cannot recommend highly enough Fowler's Modern English Usage. Although some of the English it advocates is no longer modern, it remains for my money and by some distance the best single helper when it comes to questions of English grammar. Personally, I'd go for it over S&W, but I realise both have their uses.

Harhoo

07:43 / 15.01.04

And, as a side companion to his beloved Fowler, I'd heartily recommend THE KING'S ENGLISH by Kingsley Amis (Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk).

A practical guide to better written and spoken English his prescriptions are, if you only know Amis pere through his reputation, surprisingly liberal and flexible in the right places while being rigid in the case of ignorance and pretension.

The book is laugh out-loud funny, informative and ricockulously readible. If you've ever shuddered at the misuse of jejune or got annoyed when someone claims that you should never split an infinitive, Amis will provide the maximum amount of grist for your mill.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

18:35 / 20.01.04

Good stuff, all. Am now seriously considering parting with actual coin for Fowler and maybe Strunk & White, too.

How important would you say that actually owning a couple of good solid grammar books is, if one is serious about this whole professional writer lark? On a scale of one to ten, say, where one is "Nahh, don't bother unless you're feeling rich," and ten is "What the fuck's WRONG with you? Do you mean to say you don't own them already, you pathetic apology for a wannabe hack? Begone, thou errant wastoid!"

Less searchable M0rd4nt

08:27 / 26.01.04

Grammar books? Good thing? Indifferent thing? Essential thing? Yes? No? Isn't it? Hmm?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:16 / 26.01.04

I don't have one, but my grammar's okay - partly because I have a couple of other languages. In any case, most film scripts are at best partially literate - if I write too well, people tell me my work is 'too literary' and 'not filmic'. Weird psychological thing. Most professional prose writers I know have a Fowler's or something knocking around 'just in case' - but quite often the need to check the form is a red flag: if you need to look this construction up, you may want to ask yourself why you're using it.

Does anyone else find "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves" amazingly annoying?

Olulabelle

08:32 / 01.03.05

When you make a list which comes after the words 'as follows:' does each bullet point have a semi-colon after it except for the last one, and does the penultimate point have a semi-colon followed by the word 'and'?

Such as:

* point a;
* point b;
* point c; and
* point d.

I'm reading that here in a document I'm checking for someone. Is it right?

hoatzin

08:48 / 01.03.05

Mordant: Owning reference books is always an excellent thing- and often useful.
Nick: I do. Mainly because there are things I don't know in it.
Olulabelle: I think it is correct but unnecessary.

Olulabelle

09:00 / 01.03.05

Well as long as it's right I'm not going to change it since there are about 100 such lists in this document. It's up to them if they want to be all verbose and overblown!

Stupid grammar question number two:

Do you capitalise sections of counties, such as in '...this South Wiltshire village.'?

Smoothly

09:53 / 01.03.05

For what it's worth, I don't think semicolons are called for at all if you're using bullet points.

I think the use of capitals varies according to taste, but there seems to be a trend to do away with them except with proper nouns - although Estate Agents and Executives of all colours still seem to be fighting a rearguard action.
So, as far as I know, South Wiltshire isn't a place name in itself (like South America, say) - so I would go for 'a south Wiltshire village'. Not that you should count me as any great authority, clearly.

Smoothly

10:02 / 01.03.05

Ahh, except a Google suggests that South Wiltshire is a defined administrational region. So South Wiltshire isn't just the south of Wiltshire as I presumed, and so would take the initial capital. I think.
Ha, my geography is even worse than my English.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:06 / 01.03.05

Olula: semicolons in bullet lists is an archaism - it represents the fact that if youy were writing such a list in straight, non-bulleted text, you would use a colon, followed by semicolons between elements. These days you don't have to do it.

Olulabelle

10:17 / 01.03.05

Oh. How frustrating.

Thanks Haus and thanks Smoothly for the Wiltshire thing.

Third Question.
'That', or 'which'? 'That' when it's inanimate and 'which' when it's animate?

Smoothly

10:19 / 01.03.05

I should probably back away since Haus is around, but I don't think that/which has anything to do with animation. As a rule, that defines and which informs.

'This is the house that Jack built'
'This house, which Jack also built, is a pile of shite'

grant

18:59 / 01.03.05

I think that was delved into in the Random Q&A thread. If you foller the Strunk & White link up there, it should also lead to answers.

Lugue

14:22 / 07.08.05

Hmm, may I pull this one out of the hat for a question?

"This is why (...) I like you. Because you're not right in the head, and nor am I."

Now, not entirely sure 'bout the source (google sayz Mozza?) but being a bit of a grammar-nazi generally speaking, even when I'm probably wrong (most likely the case, as English isn't my mother-tongue), I ask: shouldn't it be "Because you're not right in the head, and neither am I"?

Yes, minor silliness, and big chance I'm wrong, but it sounds so... instinctively wrong, that I must knooow, so please, Lith, be pedantic for me.

Put me down if you must!

Loomis

16:37 / 07.08.05

Never question Morrissey. Didn't they tell you that when you signed up? I think it's in the wiki somewhere.

Lugue

18:05 / 07.08.05

I have the face of the M tatooed on my pained chest, but years of being hated for loving have made me distrustful, even of the Lord.

Give me my answer.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:21 / 07.08.05

The problem here, I think, is "and". "Neither" has the conjunctive use "also not" or "similarly not", so "neither you nor I are right in the head" would be gramatically better, as "nor" is a correlative conjunction and expects a balance. Hooever, "nor" means "not or", just as "neither" means "not either". So, if you can imagine the sentence "Because you are right in the head, or I am", which you can, then "Because you're not right in the head, nor am I" also seems to work, although it has an unfortunate implication that the one is a direct result of the other, which has to be resolved by context...

Mind you, neither/nor is an absolute pig, so don't take my word for it. Most of it's about successful communication anyway.

Lugue

10:09 / 08.08.05

Thank you very much, then. Still took a bit to get my head around it (bright, I be, oh so), but I suppose I get the point now and all is settled and well and possibly pink.

MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!

16:57 / 04.04.07

Okay: can you "prevent risks"? I'm wrestling with a sentence right now that says similar to "promoting optimum health benefits while preventing the risks for cancer."

I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's more or less how it runs. And I just keep pounding my head against the "preventing the risks" bit. I mean, you can't prevent risks, right? You can avoid them, or eliminate them, but you can't prevent them. I think.

Or have I just gone mad?

Glenn Close But No Cigar

17:06 / 04.04.07

You can't prevent a risk. Perhaps the word youre looking for is 'reduce'? It's impossible, after all, to totally avoid or eliminate the risk of cancer either...

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:06 / 04.04.07

You haven't, I don't think. Preventation is taking action to make something not happen. A risk is the possibility of something happpening. So, one can minimise or manage risks, but "prevent" is really only something you can do to something that might happen, whereas a risk is the quality of "might happen" of the something. You could prevent the existence of conditions that increase the risk of cancer, but you might find it simpler simply to reduce the risks of cancer.

MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!

17:13 / 04.04.07

I'm suggesting "to avoid cancer risk factors," or similar. Thanks for helping me sort that out in my head.

Add Your Reply