Grammar issue

[jfalkon]

I'm usualy not one to pick on grammar and am compltetely dependent on spell checkers but there is one thing that bother's me. Back in 8th grade I was taught the following rule:

 

If you want to shorten the sentence

"Tom likes dogs and I like dogs."

you write

"Tom and I like dogs."

 

If you want to shorten the sentence

"The cat scared Tom and the cat scared me."

you write

"The cat scared Tom and me."

 

This makes perfect sense to me, but often I find that when people are talking casualy they always say "so-and-so and me". When they are writing or making a formal speach they always say "so-and-so and I". I'm used to grammatical errors in casual conversation so I can ignore that part. What has me confused is when I see the folowing in writing:

"Jill was angry at Tom and I."

If you try to write a longer version of this sentence you get "Jill was angry at Tom and Jill was angry at I." I know that's wrong, but is saying "Jill was angry at Tom and I," acceptable?

 

I know language changes with time and I see this sort of thing everywhere. Is this something that is or should be here to stay or are people just slopy?

[Graeme]

In narration, you should try to write correct grammar. The grammar rules are there to try to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations (though I'll conceded that they don't always succeed at that task).

 

In dialogue, you can be more relaxed because people rarely speak correct formal grammar.

 

HOWEVER, I recently read that dialogue in stories is not supposed to be real speech -- it is supposed to sound like speech. Just like a movie dialogue gives the illusion of a legitimate conversation, so should dialogue in a story. If you think about it, people in real life don't speak like they do in movies -- with no hesitations, mispronounced words or mixed up sentences. But putting them in doesn't help the movie, and potentially detracts from what the characters are saying, so all those "mistakes" are edited out. The same applies with dialogue in stories. You aim for the illusion of real speech, but you fudge it so people can understand what is being said -- and that's where grammar rules come into play. Apply them, but you can be relaxed if the correct grammar sounds stilted. Just make sure that what they say is clear.

 

Unless there is a reason in the story (such as having a character who is constantly correcting other people's grammar), you would have a character say, "Jill was angry at Tom and me." The alternative adds nothing to the story, and the correct phrase doesn't appear stilted, so why not use it?

 

I'm on of the opinion that this should be fixed and that it is just sloppy or ill-informed writing.

[Camy]

people in real life don't speak like they do in movies -- with no hesitations, mispronounced words or mixed up sentences. But putting them in doesn't help the movie, and potentially detracts from what the characters are saying, so all those "mistakes" are edited out.

It depends on the movie. Woody Allen's films are great because of the 'real dialogue'.

[Graeme]

It depends on the movie. Woody Allen's films are great because of the 'real dialogue'.

True. Everything is ultimately a guideline. I was aware that there are times you want to use 'real dialogue' but most of the time it would just be a distraction from the story. It is up to the author to decide when it isn't.

[Bondwriter]

What has me confused is when I see the folowing in writing:

"Jill was angry at Tom and I."

If you try to write a longer version of this sentence you get "Jill was angry at Tom and Jill was angry at I." I know that's wrong, but is saying "Jill was angry at Tom and I," acceptable?

 

I know language changes with time and I see this sort of thing everywhere. Is this something that is or should be here to stay or are people just slopy?

You lucky people who are not bothered by grammar in school. If your 1st pronoun person is the subject, it's I. If it's the object, it's me. Hence "Jill was angry at Tom and me. So, Tom and I gave her a cold shoulder. Tom and I went to the restaurant all by ourselves. Now, Jill hates Tom and me."

 

But I agree with all of the above on dialogues. I will leave improper grammar in dialogues if it helps towards characterization. Otherwise, in the narrative parts, I fix it.

[jfalkon]

Thanks for the explanations!

 

That mistake is so common I was starting to question my own understanding of the language. I apreciate the comments on writing dialogue. It is a weak point for me.

[glomph]

Using "I" in the objective case, such as "Jill was angry at Tom and I," is an affectation. When you have a character say that, then the character will come off as pretentious, assuming that your audience is not too stupid to know the difference. You can use other clues to help paint that picture of the character.

 

So to generalize, one can use the grammar and structure of dialogue to help develope a character, and not just the content of what is said.

 

In real life, we tend to speak more formally in some settings than others, so having the character make similar adjustments in style not only is a bit more realistic, but also can help establish the mood and circumstances of the scene.

[DomLuka]

I like my editor

[Jack Scribe]

I like my editor

[eliotmoore]

An interesting discussion from you all. Language changes, we all know that, and there is no particular imperative for us to hold some sort of line. My freguent errors aside (and I now seek editors with a better sense of such things than I have), I follow the rule that narrative needs to be in Standard English and dialogue should be colloquial, reflecting the background and age of the character.

 

All well and good if you tend to write in third person as I do. Those authors who prefer first person need to do what they think is best. Would Huckleberry Finn sound better if the "voice" of Huck was Standard English? I read a science fiction story called the Mechanic (probably at Nifty). The author shifted the narration as he proceeded to emphasize the transformation in his character. I think we all recognize this as useful.

 

I recently drifted into the use of ... to represent significant pauses in dialogue. I'm glad someone suggested this was not a good idea. Adverbial references like "slowly", "hesitantly", or "rapidly" ought to cue a reader to the manner the words are delivered. As someone once remarked, you need to respect the reader's intelligence.

Edited May 28, 2007 by eliotmoore

[DomLuka]

I'm somewhere between Dom and Kitty. I have toned down my dialogue in attempting to be 'real'. If you sit back and listen to the way people speak to each other...it's scary. I used to include several "ah's" and "um's", and ending sentences in prepositions, because that's the way many educated people talk. But editor Trab kept hammering away at me to be a little less realistic. I have acquiesced and turned a new leaf. But I still cringe listening to some conversations.

 

Jack

 

Ooo, Ahs and ums!

 

I used to do that a lot, too. Still do sometimes, but only when I really think it should be there. It really does start to sound terrible when you start rereading it, which kind of goes to Greame

[Razor]

I'm usualy not one to pick on grammar and am compltetely dependent on spell checkers but there is one thing that bother's me. Back in 8th grade I was taught the following rule:

 

If you want to shorten the sentence

"Tom likes dogs and I like dogs."

you write

"Tom and I like dogs."

 

If you want to shorten the sentence

"The cat scared Tom and the cat scared me."

you write

"The cat scared Tom and me."

 

This makes perfect sense to me, but often I find that when people are talking casualy they always say "so-and-so and me". When they are writing or making a formal speach they always say "so-and-so and I". I'm used to grammatical errors in casual conversation so I can ignore that part. What has me confused is when I see the folowing in writing:

"Jill was angry at Tom and I."

If you try to write a longer version of this sentence you get "Jill was angry at Tom and Jill was angry at I." I know that's wrong, but is saying "Jill was angry at Tom and I," acceptable?

 

I know language changes with time and I see this sort of thing everywhere. Is this something that is or should be here to stay or are people just slopy?

 

 

People just don't know enough about grammar to use these correctly. "Me" is an objective case pronoun, meaning it's going to be used as an object. Object of... something, lot of times the object of a preposition, like at.

 

Jill can't be angry at I. Jill can be angry at me. I is a nominative case pronoun, meaning it's gonna be used as a noun. It also happens to be a proper noun because of reasons we ain't even gonna get into cause I'll get way the hell off on a tangent.

 

I is nominative. Me is objective. Nouns can do things, right? Makes sense that nominative case pronouns can do things then, huh? I went to the store. I did something, didn't I? Objects don't do much, do they? They usually get things done to 'em, right? Or they just sit there, whatever. The store fell on me. Something happened to me, didn't it?

 

Objective, nominative. All about pronoun case, baby. If 75% of grammatical mistakes are about the verb, the other 25% are about pronoun case.

 

I hope that wasn't confusing. To understand it you might need some former schooling in grammar to know where objects usually go in a sentence, like a direct object, object of a preposition, or retained object. Things like that are just things you have to know in order to break down the weird things so that you understand them.

 

 

Oh and um... never use I at the end of a sentence unless you really know what you're doing. Good general rule. Jill was angry at Tom and I. <---- that is NOT grammatically correct. NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT. NOT. NO NO NO. Bad puppy! Jill was angry at Tom and me. <--- Correct

 

Jill and me were angry at Tom. <---- NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!

Jill and I were angry at Tom<----- YAY! Correct!

 

See the difference? Nominative used as a noun. Objective used as an object.

[Conner]

Ok, try this one out...

 

"You speak more eloquently than me."

and

"You speak more eloquently than I do."

 

Which is correct? Are both correct? :wacko:

 

Conner

[TalonRider]

I found an interesting program to use when go thru the editing process. It's called readplease.com. It's a program that will read any text you put into it. I find it useful if there is a lot of dialog.

 

When you download it, you get two versions to use, Free and Plus, for 30 days. The Plus version gives you more features than the Free version.

 

It's a useful tool for author and editor alike.

 

Jan

[Bondwriter]

Boy, you give someone a high school diploma, and they think they know everything.

Kitty

Yes, but they just rephrase what's been wisely put up by an elder in a slightly more complex way, lol.

 

I found an interesting program to use when go thru the editing process. It's called readplease.com. (...)

It's a useful tool for author and editor alike.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[jfalkon]

Ok, I think I get it. If I understand things correctly "You speak more eloquently than I do," is correct. I speak. You speak. You do something. I do something. "You speak more eloquently than me," is incorrect. You speak. Me speak---That sounds wrong. Me is an object so it is acted on instead of acting. You might be able to get away with saying "You speak more eloquently than I," but it sounds incomplete with out the verb on the end.

[Bondwriter]

Ok, I think I get it. If I understand things correctly "You speak more eloquently than I do," is correct. I speak. You speak. You do something. I do something. "You speak more eloquently than me," is incorrect. You speak. Me speak---That sounds wrong. Me is an object so it is acted on instead of acting. You might be able to get away with saying "You speak more eloquently than I," but it sounds incomplete with out the verb on the end.

Right on. But all of the above about incorrect grammar in dialogues still applies. "You speak more eloquently than I," could be uttered by a character who tries to sound educated, but still lacks the mastery of the objective and subjective case pronouns, and could follow Razor's grammar course.

[Razor]

"You speak more eloquently than I do" is one of those cases of knowing what you're doing when you put I at the end of a sentence. Conner the Grammar Hun could explain that beautifully (in fact I think he was just showing off ).

 

That little "than I do" part is actually an elliptical clause. The whole thing is "You speak more eloquently than I do speak eloquently". "than I do speak eloquently" is an adverb, describing how eloquently you speak. For the sake of convenience and for the simple fact that it just seems obvious, we leave off the last half of clauses like that, which is why they're elliptical.

 

It is for that reason it could be validly argued that in that sentence, "I" is not a noun at all, because it's part of an adverb clause. It's got a noun and verb in it, sure, but since that verb isn't the real verb and it's got a noun to go with it, it's a clause (not to mention it has "than" in front of it... that's a good indicator, too). Since it's a clause that's telling to what degree your speech is eloquent, it is indeed an ~drum roll~ adverb clause. Clauses change the rules of the game.

 

That's the way I'd look at it, anyway. I guess you could think I was being used objectively if you left off that "do" at the end that's a dead giveaway, but it is indeed still an elliptical clause. "You speak more eloquently than I speak eloquently" is what you would have there. Elliptical clauses suck, indeed, but the sneaky buggers make us able to be lazy.

 

Elliptical adverb clauses... the breakfast of champions.

 

 

 

Kitty dearest, haven't we all realized that I'm a genius yet? And don't get me started about how messed up graduation was, lol, you should've been there. Mississippi at its finest.

 

OH! While we're talking about case! We know there's nominative and objective, yes? Well there's also possessive! I just used it, too, which is why I thought about it. This is a pretty easy way to remember the it's/its thing, too.

 

Its is possessive, and it's is a contraction of it and is. Why? Because its has a whole damn case to itself, ain't that nifty? It is a possessive case pronoun, yay!

[PatrickOBrien]

"You speak more eloquently than I do" is one of those cases of knowing what you're doing when you put I at the end of a sentence. Conner the Grammar Hun could explain that beautifully (in fact I think he was just showing off ).

 

That little "than I do" part is actually an elliptical clause. The whole thing is "You speak more eloquently than I do speak eloquently". "than I do speak eloquently" is an adverb, describing how eloquently you speak. For the sake of convenience and for the simple fact that it just seems obvious, we leave off the last half of clauses like that, which is why they're elliptical.

 

It is for that reason it could be validly argued that in that sentence, "I" is not a noun at all, because it's part of an adverb clause. It's got a noun and verb in it, sure, but since that verb isn't the real verb and it's got a noun to go with it, it's a clause (not to mention it has "than" in front of it... that's a good indicator, too). Since it's a clause that's telling to what degree your speech is eloquent, it is indeed an ~drum roll~ adverb clause. Clauses change the rules of the game.

 

That's the way I'd look at it, anyway. I guess you could think I was being used objectively if you left off that "do" at the end that's a dead giveaway, but it is indeed still an elliptical clause. "You speak more eloquently than I speak eloquently" is what you would have there. Elliptical clauses suck, indeed, but the sneaky buggers make us able to be lazy.

 

Elliptical adverb clauses... the breakfast of champions.

Kitty dearest, haven't we all realized that I'm a genius yet? And don't get me started about how messed up graduation was, lol, you should've been there. Mississippi at its finest.

 

OH! While we're talking about case! We know there's nominative and objective, yes? Well there's also possessive! I just used it, too, which is why I thought about it. This is a pretty easy way to remember the it's/its thing, too.

 

Its is possessive, and it's is a contraction of it and is. Why? Because its has a whole damn case to itself, ain't that nifty? It is a possessive case pronoun, yay!

 

 

I seriously just considered quitting writing.

[Bondwriter]

I seriously just considered quitting writing.

We'll never repeat it enough. Grammar is language about language. Here is a little fairy tale.

 

Once upon a time, there was a valiant young lad called Jamie. He had a much sharper nickname, and his blason representing the macabre symbol of My Compound Love Affair struck awe in the heart of his numerous enemies, down there in the far away realm somewhere south of the Great Empire that ruled the world.

 

Jamie had attended school, and there his wits and his sharp tongue had not helped him to make only friends. Yes, quite a few foes he had, not only among the students, but also among the teachers. For Jamie's wits were not always a blessing, since he felt he lived among a few ignoramuses who annoyed him deeply.

 

Nevertheless, there was one teacher who had given Jamie the love of language. Not only of vocabulary, but also of its logic, also known as syntax and grammar.

 

This particular body of knowledge had opened our paladin's eyes on a whole new realm, one in which you could lay out your thoughts clearly not only by picking the right words, but also by understanding how they arranged together to make up a meaningful, clear, sensible sentence.

 

Syntax and grammar had been around since the beginning of the written word. Mastering them in ancient times was the privilege of a few. They never disappeared, but according to the country and the language that was spoken, they made more or less sense.

 

You see, over the centuries, all languages had evolved, been renewed, because they were used by people everyday and the slight shifts that occurred from one province to the next became rules for the majority. Of course, the birth of newspapers and then the radio had unified languages, but they kept on evolving, though not at the same rate.

 

So when Jamie discovered that knowing syntax and grammar's arcane jargon helped out to spell better, but also to understand better and hence to think better, he had a brainwave. Had he been religious, he'd have considered it his sacred duty to crusade and enlighten his fellow human beings with this knowledge. But alas, in his empire, it was not too easy to go around using the jargon without having some people frown, looking at him as if it was some cryptic knowledge.

 

Of course, there were good reasons: one had never needed any grammatical knowledge to learn a language. In some languages the relationships between words, the tenses, etc. were all transparent in the spoken form too, without vicious distinctions to be made between its and it's or they're and their. The various educational institutions had also made choices that could be deemed as ideological regarding teaching syntax and grammar in the different realms and empires.

 

But Jamie had gone on a crusade, and he would tirelessly try to convince his peers that understanding the jargon would bring them happiness, confidence in their writing capacity, and less work for their editors.

 

He would ride his steed and let others know, hoping it wouldn't discourage them from pursuing their quest towards a better mastery of language, since knowledge was freedom. And some observers from across the sea could not help but feel respect for the brave objective or possessive cases knight. Willing to help him out to make the jargon more meaningful to the masses.

 

(to be continued)

[Conner]

... Conner the Grammar Hun could explain that beautifully (in fact I think he was just showing off ).

...

 

 

Well, at least I know how to show off in a few lines.

 

Conner

[Jack Scribe]

We'll never repeat it enough. Grammar is language about language.

Frosty Hunter? Isn't that a little gay?

 

Seriously, I have nothing but respect for someone who's proficency in English is so precise and literate...especially when you consider it's Bondwriter's second language.

 

Jack

[eliotmoore]

Seriously, I have nothing but respect for someone who's proficency in English is so precise and literate...especially when you consider it's Bondwriter's second language.

 

Jack

 

... which interestingly enough sometimes makes it easier to attend to rules. ESL people are more attentive I think. There is nothing more fanatical than a convert.

 

I have been enjoying your discourse people. I suspect a number of you would be dancing around my bonfire of vanities gleefully tossing my collected works onto the pire. Fiction, like poetry, should have some freedom to write its own rules. e.e. cummings was not grammatical, yet he was brilliant.

[Bondwriter]

Fiction, like poetry, should have some freedom to write its own rules. e.e. cummings was not grammatical, yet he was brilliant.

And Picasso could draw figuratively like no one. I agree that playing with language is something writers can do. But it's instead of its is most of the time a result of inattention, or lack of knowledge, not of a creative burst. Actually, if it wasn't too clear with my little story, I don't believe grammar to be very useful in language learning. The French system force-feeds grammar to the students in their native language from the beginning, and seen how 80% of the population spell, it's time that could be better spent teaching them to express themselves first. At some point it does help though. There must be other threads around with this debate going on.

[Razor]

My thing is that grammar makes writing easier and more effective.

 

No, I cannot explain anything in just one sentence. I'm just too scatterbrained. And besides, don't you just hate those people who spout off one or two sentences, then wonder why others don't understand? Almost as bad as those people who go on and on and on for six paragraphs...

 

Grammar is the knowledge of writing correctly and effectively. Just as a painter must know what brushes and strokes to use, and a singer must know how to read music, so must an author know how to use their medium of choice.

 

By the way, I like this title of Grammar Knight... it's nice. It makes me imagine a little final fantasy tactics (video game) character jumping around and spouting off things like "Subject-verb agreement!" and then BAM the other guy drops dead, bwaha!