Sentence Fragments and Run-on sentences
This is the other thing that, in my experience, many writers have trouble with, even the pros at times. The following rules may be broken within speech, but not in narrative, until you have sold at least 500,000 copies of a book. Then you can tell me when exceptions may be made.
1. A sentence contains one verb. No less. If it's less, add one. If more, see rules three and four. So these are wrong:
Quote:
What an incredible day! (No verb, so not a sentence. Allowed only in speech.)
She went to the liquor store and she bought some Frangelico and she drove home and she drank herself into a stupor and she woke up hung over. (Too many verbs; really a bunch of sentences.)
2. Participles, such as "eating", "lying", "writhing", are not, by themselves, verbs!
Quote:
Lying beside her on the bed. (Not a sentence because "lying" isn't a verb)
The robot lying beside her on the bed. (Still the same problem)
The robot was lying beside her on the bed. (Better)
3. Commas do not join sentences. Join two closely-related sentences with a semicolon. (If it would make sense to use a period, it does NOT make sense to use a comma.)
Quote:
Commas do not join sentences, join two closely-related sentences with a semicolon. (Wrong)
Commas do not join sentences; join two closely-related sentences with a semicolon. (Better)
Exceptions (very short sentences, etc) only as in Strunk and White: http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html
4. Conjunctions (and, but, or) may join related sentences, but use precision.
"It was a sunny day and she screamed." is not a good use of a conjunction. Choose your joining method with care to help the reader understand.
Quote:
My sub really hates this particular whip, I like it. (wrong)
My sub really hates this particular whip and I like it. (poor)
My sub really hates this particular whip; I like it. (correct but ambiguous)
My sub really hates this particular whip but I like it. (good - relationship explained)
My sub really hates this particular whip; that's why I like it. (excellent)
And a wonderful example from Douglas Hofstadter -- Choose your conjunctions with care -- you can make truth into absurdity otherwise:
Quote:
Politicians lie. Cast iron sinks. (True)
Politicians lie and cast iron sinks. (True but poorly chosen conjunction)
Politicians lie in cast iron sinks. (O RLY?)
5. Memorize Strunk chapter II (it's very short!) and then re-read the above.
Strunk chapter II again: http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html
Some of Strunk's rules from 1918, like the use of serial commas, are becoming more flexible lately. Still you will do much better knowing these than not knowing them. They are the anchor; without them you are adrift. Know them and build.
Forgive me if I don't say, "Thank-you, Master"
Instant response: phrases can be written without verbs, for example - instant response, showing that a phrase can be used in writing, although you say it can't:-
What an incredible day! (No verb, so not a sentence. Allowed only in speech.)
(And notice that you yourself followed your illustration with two more written phrases.)
Meanwhile, I confess to my inability to see how ones in the sentence you snorted could possibly be confused with the possessive form of the pronoun one without an apostrophe.
I concede that the "rules" require some possessive pronouns other than one do take an apostrophe. I oversimplifed and didn't check. That wasn't bafflegab - it was arrogant laziness. But my mistake makes my case for me: English grammar can be confusing, and for that reason the rules deserve to be flouted. It doesn't have to be possessive pronouns and possessive adjectives. It can be the use of the subjunctive, or when and whether to drop the -m from whom (I bet Strunk requires -m all the time, but it's quite a rarity in 21st Century English). If ship is both feminine and neuter, why is it regarded as poor grammar to refer to the ship as both she and it at the same time? Why is ship feminine anyway: boat isn't? Why is it also acceptable to use they in the 3rd person singular (I wonder it Strunk allows it: it's everywhere in today's language)? These aren't questions on the "fringe" - you object to those (why?). They arise every day in every aspect of writing. Books and books have been written on the idiosyncrasies of the English language, and much disagreement ensues. That couldn't happen if it was all neat and tidy. You have yourself said there is (are?)any number of difficult bits that could make a person's head ache. They're only there because they are useful or because someone who has taken the authority to himself to do so, says so. If they are useful, fine. If they are there because someone says so, then who cares?
My point isn't that there are no rules, or that they are all useless - that's just you belittling me again. It's just that the rules aren't binding on everyone all the time. You can see that I generally adhere to them, but I do not consider myself compelled to. And I don't think you need a qualification to break the rules, be that a doctorate in Lingusitics or a successful publishing record. No-one, no-one at all is qualified to say this rule or that one cannot be broken. Only the sense of what you are trying to say governs how you say it. If you think you can say something better by breaking the rules, go for it.
Quote:
Sounds like a bitter bit of sour grapes to me.
Maybe it does, but it isn't.
Bless you, it all depends...
Okay, now that I feel you're taking things seriously, I will respond in kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MMI
Instant response: phrases can be written without verbs, for example -
instant response, showing that a phrase can be used in writing, although you say it can't:-
What an incredible day! (No verb, so not a sentence. Allowed only in speech.)
(And notice that you yourself followed your illustration with two more written phrases.)
Right. Hence the differences between the spoken register(s) and several written registers. This is an online discussion forum, and we're both writing in a casual register, much as we'd speak. As someone mentioned in the other forum, first-person narration is in a more casual register as well, and can also have sentence fragments and break other rules. So all you're saying is right.
My being belittling (for which I apologize) was not because you correctly pointed out that sometimes you can break the rules. It's because you were vague about it, and implied that it meant these rules were irrelevant or not useful. Or that they should simply be ignored.
Quite the opposite -- when publishing (which is what I want this forum to be about), these rules are very relevant. Even the outdated ones like who vs. whom. Any decent editor will know exactly what register you're in at any given moment, and when it's appropriate to be conservative and use "whom" correctly. So knowing exactly when to ignore some or all of the rules is key. Your assertion that they can just be ignored whenever you feel like it is simply chaos.
Quote:
...I oversimplifed and didn't check. That wasn't bafflegab - it was arrogant laziness. But my mistake makes my case for me: English grammar can be confusing, and for that reason the rules deserve to be flouted.
Well, that doesn't follow for me. Hmm. Other examples perhaps. The law is confusing and should therefore be flouted? No. Proper laboratory procedure is confusing and should therefore be ignored? Nope. Pre-flight equipment checklists are confusing and should be skipped? Hmmm. I can't think of any case where having a confusing set of rules is reason to ignore them.
So if that's the connection I've been missing in your argument, I think I'll choose to just disagree right there. To the contrary, the service an editor provides to a writer and a publisher is a fine knowledge of when each rule applies and when it may be broken. That distinction would serve us aspiring writers here in the forum, too.
Quote:
These aren't questions on the "fringe" - you object to those (why?).
You're oversimplifying again. What I objected to was dismissing the rules because they are both changing and fuzzy at the edges. ALL matters of human language are constantly changing and fuzzy at the edges. In fact it goes much farther than language. You could substitute "rules of civilized behavior" or "rules of civil law" and still be correct to say they're constantly changing and fuzzy at the edges. But I wouldn't suggest flouting them.
Quote:
My point isn't that there are no rules, or that they are all useless - that's just you belittling me again. It's just that the rules aren't binding on everyone all the time.
With that understood, I'm not trying to lead a forum about "everyone all the time". (my emphasis above) I'm trying to lead a forum about "how to write so a publisher will want to publish you". And in that case, those rules are darned important. Your observations on how they don't bind everyone at all times are correct, but out of place here.
Quote:
If you think you can say something better by breaking the rules, go for it.
But do it outside your manuscripts, if you please!
Capitalizing titles for Mad Lews
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mad Lews
This is not about sentence structure but a grammar question none the less.
When is master,mistress capitalized?
I've heard that it should be capital M when refering to a specific individual, such as "Please Master, not in the face."
But when talking about the position or relationship it should be a small m.
The mistresses gathered around the coral. It was always fun to watch a master break the ponies.
Mad Lews
Good questions, Mad! I looked around and found this handy rule set, in which I think it's safe to consider Master/Mistress a title:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMU Styleguide
Titles
A person's title is capitalized only when used before the name. When using a capitalized title immediately before the name, try to keep it short. Do not capitalize an occupational designation, only a true title. Department names are in lower case in a person's title.
Right: We met President Cohon.
Right: The president will speak at the dinner.
Right: Vice President for Enrollment William Elliott issued the memo.
Right: Our speaker will be artist William Cooper.
Titles following a person's name should appear in lower case. Use lower case when a title is used alone.
Right: The president of Carnegie Mellon will address the group.
Right: Jeff Bolton, vice president for business and planning and chief financial officer, will host the reception.
Chaired professorships appear in lower case, except for the proper name. University professorships also use lower case.
Right: Andres Cardenes, the Dorothy Richard Starling and Alexander C. Speyer Jr. professor of music, donated his Stradivarius violin to the School of Music in Carnegie Mellon's College of Fine Arts.
Right: Her years of hard work were acknowledged when she earned the rank of university professor.
found at http://www.cmu.edu/styleguide/capitalization.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lews
Is this the rule? It certainly makes a writers life a little harder. Maybe I should have taken up historic romance novels.
Then you'd still have to worry about capitalizing Squire, Sir, Baron, Duchess, etc... Too bad, hein?