Composing grammatically correct sentences

Dierk, I studied German for four years, two in high school (from a chalk throwing spinster - "du vill listen to vat I say!") and then two more years in college. About the only thing I've retained from this was the remarkable observation that if presented with written German, I could verbalize it quite correctly even if most of the words were unfamiliar to me. Later skirmishes with Spanish were similar. English otoh is such an amalgam of languages that you have not a clue in a similar situation. Perhaps the inverse (spelling from sound) is not so clean, but again the European languages seem thankfully mostly free of homophones (eg rein, reign, rain; too, to, two) and the spelling rules don't contain nearly so many "buts". The standard joke is "i before e except after c, except, except, except...".

Being a mathematician I appreciate consistency and one-to-one mappings and english fails miserably in these regards. The only place where english has a leg up is in gender simplication.

- DL

Don Lashier said:

Being a mathematician I appreciate consistency and one-to-one mappings and english fails miserably in these regards. The only place where english has a leg up is in gender simplication.

- DL

Click to expand...

Like apostrophe ess ('s) is possessive unless it's* used on a pronoun. Which is frigging moronic in its* lack of consistency.

,

Sean

* it's is it is while its is the possessive of it rather than the plural of it. It's just nonsense.

Inconsistent English

Not to defend english (sic) to the death--but there may be a sort of consistency with a couple of other possessive pronoun forms:

its
her
his
your
mine

our
your
their

hers
his
yours
ours
my

Oh, heck--I haven't got a leg to stand on, defending English spoken language and written spelling.

Chaucer and Shakespeare handed it to me, and I use it as given.

AFAIK, "apostrophe-ess" is mostly a form used with nouns to denote possession, not so much with pronouns. In fact, at this early hour and with no coffee to my brain yet, I can't think of any pronoun which uses the apostrophe-ess for denoting possession..

"It's" with an apostrophe is a contraction for "it is" and as such consistent with the majority of other such contractions.

But, you're well aware of all this, Sean and Don.

I like to use these contractions, as you can tell, above. They have a more informal and friendly flavor to them, to my taste.

Sean DeMerchant said:

In proper grammar AFAIK, the parenthesised (sic) sotto voce comment should properly be done with comma.

Click to expand...

Near as I can tell, a parenthetical expression can be set off by commas, dashes, or even parentheses.

On reflection, I'd perhaps change my "...the structure of a language (the rules of grammar) has..."
to "... the structure of a language (its rules of grammar) to emphasis the identity I was (erroniously) asserting.

Ever read "A Garland of Ibids," by Frank S. Sullivan in A Subtreasury of American Humor ? It's seriously hilarious. Not that I would ever indulge in a series of nested parens in writing English (unless I'm feeling more sadistic than usual (a state occuring more (because our management is getting loony) frequently)).

Haven't read it, but am so glad to have it pointed out to me. Off to do a search at amazon.com for *A Subtreasury of American Humor* and order it if possible.

In re books related to this thread: Did anyone notice my citation of *The Weans* by Robert Nathan--first published as "Digging the Weans" in a 1956 issue of *Harper's Magazine*?

Respectfully yours,
Mary
An Us'n

Mary Bull said:

Something like, "This is not to say that the structure of a language, together with its rules of grammar, has no value ..."

But I bring this idea up only because I get intense enjoyment from discussing the philosophy of grammar and of language structure.
"

Click to expand...

I also enjoy discussing grammar. (Will this smilie show as an icon I wonder? Can you have a whole sentence in brackets?)

Regarding the above quote - and I apologise if this point has already been raised - there are two aspects; if the sentence only contained the 'structure' element it would be singular, yet if the sentence only contained reference to 'rules' it would be plural, BUT since there are TWO aspects being referred to (structure of language and rules of grammar), I would definitely use the plural 'have'. I have no idea which is correct!

Styles of writing are varied as I am sure we all appreciate (and therefore acceptable in the modern world), but whatever rules are applied, should be used consistently throughout the discourse. That's what I was taught in proofreading and copywriting courses.

Today at work I proofread an article for press and a sentence began with 'But' in a new paragraph no less! Not traditional, but apparently it was the 'house style' which is basically an artist's perogative to change language however they so wish, AS LONG AS IT IS APPLIED CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT.

Welcome aboard the thread!

House style is a very important consideration. 60 or so years ago, when I was in my very first paid job--at a book publisher, as a manuscript editor--our style book was *The Chicago Manual of Style*.

I wonder what E.B. White (one of the editors of the collection Will referred to above) would say about today's Internet-influenced. style and usage. <hmm>

Ger, the original poster [Sean] already made clear that he saw 'rules' and 'structure' as synonyms, making all my rescue attempts futile. I agree with you on the style front apart from the consistency ruling - style is a matter of effect, and there is nothing better than to break recipient's expectations for effect. Everyone accepts that for movies - Psycho starts out as a Noir-like crime caper to develop into psychological and then gross-out horror -, why not for other writing?

Dierk Haasis said:

I agree with you on the style front apart from the consistency ruling - style is a matter of effect, and there is nothing better than to break recipient's expectations for effect.

Click to expand...

Good point Dierk, particularly with creative writing.

As someone with BA in English, MA in English Education, a number of years teaching in the secondary classroom and a number of years editing in the PR and Communications fields, I was about to weigh in on this thread until I realized this: there is something very wrong that one of the longest threads on this 'Open Photography Forum' is about grammar!

Artists in Photography Also Artists with Words?

there is something very wrong that one of the longest threads on this 'Open Photography Forum' is about grammar!

Click to expand...

Hi Elisabeth,

I am the originator of this thread, and I may now need to amend its title a bit. Do you think?

We have, by this point in the discussion, touched on more than grammar in the posts to "Composing Grammatically Correct Sentences." In addition to syntax, we have managed to discuss semantics, aesthetics, regional dialects in English, political correctness in how citizens of the United States of America refer to themselves, and so much more about how all of us communicate with one another.

This is the Layback Cafe in the Open Photography Forums, where we are not only open but also laid back. To my great joy.

And why shouldn't artists in photography have a strong interest in the art of communication with text? After all, this marketplace of ideas is enhanced by what the photographers say in words in addition to what they show in images.

I'm so glad you decided to post in this thread. Nice to have a fellow former hs teacher aboard.

Best wishes from a state adjoining yours,
Mary

Just for the sake of clarity, let me outline, for those who have not yet realized this, the purpose-driven architecture of this website.

In a discussion on the Art of Language, one may ask, "But where's the beef?” So let me switch to the metaphor OPF structure as a delicious hamburger!

The meat of the sandwich, of course, is everything to do with going from a need, purpose, concept and vision through processing (and perhaps printing), to the final product.

This is an esthetically and technically excellent image that can be seen, enjoyed and perhaps published or offered for sale.

In order to protect this, the essence of what OPF offers, we have two important additional areas, the top and bottom of the "hamburger bun, so to speak.

On top is for professional and social introductions and discussions and the “help desk”.

Underneath is that optional slice we sometimes leave! That optional portion is the "partake at your own risk" slice, where you are on your own, for buying, selling, controversial subjects and images.

If you think you might become poisoned, drugged, robbed or fat, don't even touch the last slice. However for the hardy it's a place often worth exploring.

This three-part architecture allows the widest possibilities for discussion on OPF, but without censuring or closing or deleting threads. Anything discussed at OPF is what a group of photographers might discuss.

For example, tens thousands of people are being massacred in Darfur, 1/3rd of migrating birds don't turn up as expected or someone wants to set up a shooting group in Paris, then they're all relevant here. Each topic, however, has its own location.

If a thread in the first and last divisions grows long, that means our system works!

Also whenever photography drifts off topic, we move the daughter subject to where it can still be discussed.

Asher