Aaaah,
Hawk.
How I love this post.
I often find that I "speak" for long moments to people, and they understand what I *say*.

But put the same words in type, and suddenly I am the grammatical train wreck.
Thus, is the fallicy of communication.
In my opinion, learning to write "grammatically correct" for those who write like they speak is tantamount to learning a new language.

Nothing else but me cheering "Amen brother!"

alright's in my dictionary:

al·right [awl r� �t, áwl rīt]
adv
satisfactory: generally good, satisfactory, or pleasing (informal) 

as for "comprising" or "comprised of" I'd say that would depend on how it's used in a sentence. Something that is "technically" right doesn't always sound right. And vice/versa

Some words get along alright and some just think that cronyism is not all right at all. I use "alright" because that's the way I talk, but I also use "all right" at times because it sounds more emphatic imo and sometimes I want to be emphatic, all right. But you don't have to take my word that I'm all right, just read what some other yodel says about it, alright.

Exhibit 1 (the only one you get): Dear Editor:

I am confused by "all right" and "alright." How do I know when to use "all right" and when to use "alright"? — T. C., Ludlow, Mass.


Dear T. C.:

The short answer is that "all right" and "alright" are synonyms, so you can choose either one. The long answer, though, is that there are important differences between the two words that might influence your choice. First, "all right" is much more common than "alright." Second, "alright" is much more likely to be found in comic strips, trade journals, and newspapers and magazines than in more literary sources. Third, and maybe most significantly, many people, including the authors of just about every writer's handbook, think "alright" is all wrong.


The controversy over the appropriateness of "alright" seems to have begun in the early 20th century. Some critics have labeled it illiterate and colloquial, while others have simply denied that it exists. What the critics do not do is offer any compelling reasons for its being considered wrong, apart from its relative newness. (Analogous words like "already" and "altogether" are of course considered perfectly acceptable, but, unlike "alright," they have been in use for centuries.)


Usage commentators note that "alright" is found more often in manuscript than in print; undoubtedly it would be found more frequently in print if copy editors were not so inclined to change it to "all right."


Thus "alright" remains a commonly written but less often printed variant of "all right." If you use it, be prepared to draw some criticism.

**** End of exhibit, it's me again, okay - I can use that instead of alright if I want to; at least I didn't say OK, all right.

So there you go, it's all right to use alright so long as you have the gumption to defend it against those who don't. That's just my opinion, alright. Take care. Vern

Last edited by vern (06-18-2012 08:51:00)

Oh Vern, my hero <3 <3 <3 <3 that entire exhibit made me swoon. :p

I love correct grammar.  The lack of it matters more than the use of it.
Those who don't know, don't notice.  Those who do know,  do notice but its correct usage allows everybody to understand your story.
Are you railing against correct grammar usage because you don’t know what it is or because it interrupts your flow.
In my opinion a storyteller without grammatical knowledge is a more important writer than a writer who knows the correct way to write but can’t tell a story.  A story teller has the magic that not every writer necessarily has.   But if the language is unclear, how can anyone truly know what you are saying.  I don’t think it is necessary for a story teller to know correct grammar provided that writer has an editor who does.
Some TNBW reviewers are fantastic line editors and should be heeded.  Its free and valuable advice.

Of course punctuation is another matter as is spelling.  Why can't we just write it right?  I don't see the problem.  There's plenty of room for movement and colloquialism and punctuation creativity (just read one of my poems  ahahaha!!!)

I completely agree there is room for altered words and that is a concept I love.  But that is a deliberate thing, a device, and has nothing to do with grammar.

Everyday language ignores grammar and it has reached such a point that it becomes difficult to understand a newspaper article or a technical support instruction or any other kind of instruction.  The language we write in here is English.

I wonder if members of non-English speaking countries have the same issue with their language grammar.



I agree with flo,  great thread.  Glad you brought it up.

kiwi

I have the worst, most sanctimonious and nit-picky writing companion on the planet hounding every single sentence of everything I write. Its name? Microsoft Word!

Honestly, if I believed all the whinges that chuffin' program chucks at me -

"Ooh, that's bad grammar..." I know, you lump of software, she's from Chatham so that's how she talks...!
"Er, you don't spell it 'walkin'... " I know, but that's how he SAYS it...!
"That's a fragment, you must use complete sentences..." What, so now I have to sound like an instruction manual all the time, do I..?
"I'm sorry, but your use of negation in that sentence is all wrong..." Ohhh - S.T.F.U, Microshaft!!

And that's with most of the correction options turned OFF! I'm not a troglodyte who types by hitting the keyboard with my face, so how does Word manage to make me worry that I might be?

If anyone knows of a software add-on that allows users to virtually kick the bejasus out of Microsoft Word I'd love to hear about it

Last edited by wendy christopher (07-20-2012 06:29:28)

JElizabeth--"I've been living a lie my whole life." Dont worry, we welcome misfits.

Noel--"I am comprised of a hugenormous clump of grammar rule's" you do that on purpose? lol funny.

Cyeote--"In my opinion, learning to write "grammatically correct" for those who write like they speak is tantamount to learning a new language." Thats profound, man. You're right.

Kiwi--"In my opinion a storyteller without grammatical knowledge is a more important writer than a writer who knows the correct way to write but can’t tell a story."  Big fat AGREE from me!

Tess--"Alright Rory! Tess xx" You guys ARE listening to me, you really are! <3 lol

Wendy Christopher--"Ohhh - S.T.F.U, Microshaft!!" HAHAHA 'microshaft'. I dont think I'll ever say it right from now on.

Judy Goodwin--"...so grey still looks better to me than gray."  I'm a 'grey' gal myself!


Ahhh my soul just shifted knowing there are others out there who, at least fractionally, think like me. Not such a lonely rock now. Thanks for chippin' in y'all.

Last edited by Rory Noel Hawk (07-22-2012 09:17:32)

Oh Divine, the magnanimous way in which you misinterpret me...

"feeling" reviews are just as valid. It doesnt have to be about technicalities at all. How the hell could I critique something so beyond my head like Tsaitko's political thread when I know snit about Iran and Allah and such? I cant. But I can tell Nate if his story is interesting. I can tell him when his character veers off course, like if we as readers have been fed a line about the character being touted as "good and kind" and then they're suddenly kicking puppies---even a laymen can pick up on THAT "plot/character" inconsistency without being a seasoned pro. Proving that every little bit helps. 

Sheesh, it worries me how you could get such the polar opposite idea of what Im saying here. I am a proud sponsor of the uneducated, unskilled, rebellious writer.  Screw grammar. Screw hoity toity know it alls who can't recognize the value in a good ole fashioned "I liked this story because..." kind of review. Feelings are just as important, if not more. My WHOLE POINT of this thread is that you're (hopefully) telling a story to entertain, share an idea, flex some creativity. None of those things are really lost over minor typos and missing commas. Perfect grammar does not a perfect story make. It takes a perfect storm of all these elements and there is plenty of room to stray from "THE RULES".

I say write what you want, screw the naysayers. I'm an advocate of the use of "Alright" over it's proper uncle, the socially literary accepted "all right".  It's practically my campaign slogan. Even in my bio I tout that while the value of technical reviews cant be beat here, my personal faves are the ones that tell me what they like or what's not working.

Of course, all of this is lost if something can't be read and understood in the first place......like this thread, for instance....lol Me thinks perhaps you've already decided not to like me over something I've said, somewhere in the Forumniverse?? (s'okay, Im used to it) and now anything I say is going to sound negative?? Thats a shame. Im awesome.

Last edited by Rory Noel Hawk (07-29-2012 12:21:56)

The quickest response to Rory Noel Hawk is; if you don't want to become a snobby elitist than don't do it. It's really that simple. Most writers will admire your humorous ferocity to embrace individuality. I know I do.

But alas, there is a long form response as well;

Rory Noel Hawk wrote:

The rigid, elitist, snobbery in the literary sector has got to be its most annoying facet. I get it: there should be enough constructive "rules" involved so we have a universal way of sharing our imaginations, but getting hung up on the 'little shit' is semantics.

The constructive "rules" are comprised of tons upon tons of 'little shit'. And they only really matter if you are writing for any purposes other than pleasure.

Rory Noel Hawk wrote:

When its just about breaking down insignificant details, even when there is no loss on understanding, (i.e. you get what I mean by "alright"), you need to move on and let it go.

A work shop is all about 'insignificant detail'. It's part of what teaches us to make educated choices even if they are 'mistakes'. Once again, it really only matters if...

Rory Noel Hawk wrote:

I'm sure the ire behind these mistakes is a sentiment that says "Hey, I learned all the proper rules, so you should abide too, you lazy asshole"...but I think that's petty and insecure.

I think the truest 'ire' is mistaking, or labeling, thoughtful critique as having any sentiment beyond generosity.  Then again, the thoughts and suggestions of generous others only matter if...

Rory Noel Hawk wrote:

Writing has as much potential to grow and morph as a lot of (traditional) Art; there is room for creativity and acceptations.

Amen. Abso-fucking-lutely. There's probably not a writer here that would disagree. But I'm a little confused. How does critique stymie your creativity? You know you don't have to agree, right? 

At the end of the day, the only established regime that really carries significance is the one that might help pay the light bill. But that's only if...

I use the Duke Ellington rule of musical grammar, "If it reads good, it is good."

TirzahLaughs wrote:

tristania wrote:

I am probably going to sound like a rigid, elitist snob for saying this, but...I'm going to say it anyway. 

Sure, grammar doesn't have to be perfect in a working manuscript.  We all make mistakes, and I tend to overlook errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc., if these errors are relatively rare and don't get in the way of my reading experience.  When I review, I usually don't even point out such nits because I am not an editor.  I tend to assume that if someone is workshopping a story here, it is still in a malleable form, so why worry about polish? 

But when I hear someone say that your grammar/spelling/punctuation, etc. doesn't matter if you write a great story, it makes me wonder.  I used to do reviews on another website that catered more to fan fiction, and I have seen some pretty atrocious mistakes in the mechanics of writing.  These stories were never good, from a purely story-telling perspective. 

As elitist as this probably sounds, I think that good mechanics generally go along with good writing.  My theory is that people who are comfortable with the mechanics of writing usually learn proper grammar by reading voraciously.  That also tends to make them good storytellers. 

However, that's not to say that you can't bend the rules when it suits your purpose.  But I believe that you ought to know the rules before you start breaking them.

I am mechanically unsound.

I know this.  I have (to a point) embraced this flaw in otherwise 'noble' character.

It's why I saving to hire a nitpicker to clean up anything I missed on the the 38th edit.

What burns my bread though is when the supposed 'rule' makes my writing sound wrong or when the nitpickers disagree.     

And I admit it...I have an addiction to commas and ..., plus I cannot spell most words I hear in my head. 

Oh and I know the word for the ... but I cannot spell it correctly and my spell check isn't speaking to me this evening. 

I'm funny that way.

T

Tirzah,

I can tell by the lucidity of your post that you are not the sort of writer I was talking about.  I'm talking about people who lack basic literacy skills, whose mechanics are so poor that they can barely communicate their ideas.  Fortunately I have not run across many (if any) writers on this site who fall into that category.  But I have seen it all too often, and a common justification for this utter disregard for language is, "Who cares about grammar/punctuation/spelling etc. if the story is good?  An editor can just fix the technical problems."  (Not that it is actually expressed in these words.) 

I guess I was just reacting against this attitude because I have seen it taken to the extreme, and it isn't pretty.  It indicates extreme laziness and disrespect for readers who are expected to translate it.  (Unless it's actually the writer's secondary language, in which case they have an excuse.)  But I have never seen such a technical train-wreck translate into anything other than a disaster of a story.  I can only assume that people who write this way don't read, otherwise they would be more familiar with how written language works, and most people in our society learn how to write stories by reading them. 

That said, I think that all writers can benefit from having an editor, regardless of how confident you are of your language skills.  English is kind of f-ed up. 

There are certain things in our language that always sound awkward to me, even though they are grammatically correct.  I hate that we have no gender-neutral singular pronoun that substitutes for "he" or "she."  I often use who/whom incorrectly in speech and casual writing just because it leads to awkward constructions, otherwise.  When I'm writing formally, I just try to re-word awkward sentences so that they sound more natural.