Well, that was kind of my point - I think too many writers get caught up in this type of thing instead of just writing. I've read discussions where people are so worried about this grammatical thing or that - and no writing gets done. As to crits - the people I've beta'd have had no problem understanding my examples of how to correct something (versus a lot of terms they probably don't understand any more than I do).
I agree; I may not know all the technical lingo for every piece of grammar out there--but I know how to use them.
But without the correct critical diction you have zilch authority or credibility to correct someone - you just rely on someone else agreeing that it 'sounds right' or 'looks ok'. Explaining what is correct is easy. Being able to explain exactly how or why it is correct requires a decent (if not comprehensive) understanding of grammatical terminology.
It is possible to know whether something is correct, and to be able to advise others of it, without knowing why it is correct. Most people have varying level of detail about all sorts of things they encounter in every day life, where they may or may not know all of the details. I can advise someone against putting diesel fuel in a gasoline engine without knowing all of the details regarding combustion of the two fuels, structural differences in engine types, and the like. A person can help a child with chemistry homework, correctly identifying that a catalyst can allow a reaction to proceed, without understanding all of the details of catalysis, activation energies, and the like. There is no reason grammar should be any different. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that people can distinguish correct grammar from incorrect grammar without being able to articulate all of the technical reasons behind the judgment, and it is no more ignorant to engage in this behavior than to engage in explanation of any number of things in daily life where we can arrive at a correct answer, and help others do so, without understanding all of the underlying complexities. In fact, underlying complexities are sometimes entirely unwanted or unnecessary. As was the case in the very real-world instance where I had to help my daughter identify the most efficient chemical reaction (see my example above), and in which instance my commentary on activation energies went entirely unappreciated
I knew a fellow who was totally illiterate but could tune an engine to perfection. Did I demand to see his diploma from trade school? No way. And when he told me, "This little knobbie was the whole problem.", did I care what that little knobbie was called? No. Whether he knew or not was immaterial. He told me what the problem was and how to fix it. What more did I need to know? That's the whole point - being able to communicate the problem and possible ways to fix it. How one communicates that is unimportant.
Well, so much for having a constructive discussion. Would my posting my IQ or list of college degrees and GPA persuade you that I have a brain?
Well, that's rude. Certainly it's _useful_ to know the terms that are used to describe grammar and to describe grammatical errors. But on the other hand, it's not as if the rules came first. There was no language creation committee that first drew up a grammar, and then hung the language on it. The language came first, and the rules and terms exist to describe it. A person who's read hundreds or thousands of books and written millions of words but has no formal grammar training whatsoever is likely to be far more expert at the language, _including_ its grammar, than someone who's read dozens of books and written thousands of words and has every grammatical term at their fingertips. ChickenFreak
Shadowwalker, I have always respected your posts. I enjoy your posts. Trust me, I don’t listen to the kiddies who kick and scream. They seem to be popping up everywhere. Oh yes. Kick and scream they do; thinking they will be heard for their loud and insidious sayings. They cover themselves in asininity. In thrix’s one post, I found major flaws. He said, “Well, I call that the last bastion of ignorance, to be perfectly honest... but to each their own.” Flaw one: He accused you of defending ignorance. The only guilty party of ignorance, in this case, is the one who said the word. Flaw Two: If the saying is true; “To each their own”, then what was the purpose of his post. That’s right. Kicking and screaming. Thrix reminds me of my little girl when she was 2. She did a lot of that.
Hardly. One who has attended college(s), gotten high grades, and been tested with a high IQ obviously is not ignorant. But maybe you're right - I should larn all those high-falutin werds so mah frens will unnerstan me gooder...
Knowing proper grammar will help one become an excellent writer, but being an excellent writer doesn't necessarily require knowing proper grammar - provided that one has sufficient experience in reading and writing. In my personal experience, reading about grammar has improved my writing immensely; intuitive use of the language is not always reliable. P.S. Take it easy, Kallithrix. Don't fall into the trap of arrogance.
ok, kids, simmer down and behave yourselves, or admin will spank! politeness and civility are expected here... rudeness and personal attacks are not tolerated...
I was recently having a conversation with a linguistics graduate who was of the opinion that there can't really be any true concept of good or bad grammar. I failed to grasp his point but the exchange made me more aware of how grammar is becoming less dogmatic. Whilst it is satisfying to both write and read proper grammar, improper grammar has its legitimate uses - indeed, sometimes it is more effective. So, I think it is important to have an understanding of grammar but also not be afraid to take liberties with it- so long as it doesn't become gratuitous
No, grammar lessons are not a waste of time and never will be. I had to learn tons about grammar and yes, they were quite boring at times but I take it on board when I am writing because just one little grammatical mistake in your work can make it fail. Even missing out a full stop will make your writing bad because you will be going on and on and the reader will just lose it and stop reading your work, which is something you need to avoid. So, whether or not the lesson on grammar is boring - always take in what is said because even filling out an application form for a job will need perfect grammar.
Interesting conversation. I know the basics of grammar, but am ignorant of many of its intricacies. I've always considered myself on the ignorant side in relation to other writers. I'm one of those people who can structure a sentence and recognize whether something is right or wrong but don't always know the grammatical rules for why it is that way. I read a lot as a child, but I went to public school. My education in grammar consisted of a month or so when we studied it in fifth grade, and got candy when we could identify adverbs, adjectives, etc. I also had an English teacher in tenth grade who taught us some grammar, but she didn't teach so much as shout at us for, for example, not knowing that it's "If I were king" instead of "If I was king," and threatening to turn us into frog jelly for creating dangling participles, whatever those were. I've tutored English informally to ESL students and I plan on getting my TESOL certification, so I need to learn more about grammar. I'm a fan of knowing the intricacies of why and how things work in order to have a full understanding of what I'm doing. As a massage therapist, I had to learn the basic structure of a cell before I could learn anatomy, physiology and kinesiology; and all this came before actual massage techniques. I liked this, as it gives me a full understanding of what I'm doing to someone's body when I'm touching it. I could give a great massage without knowing all these things, but knowing them only adds to my potential as an LMT. I have a feeling this is analogous to grammar and writing. Having a general idea of what a body is and its different parts and how they come together & work is all you need to give an effective massage. Having a complete idea of these things can only help you, but not knowing won't hurt you necessarily. I've read great stories by writers who maybe couldn't tell me what a dangling participle is, but could correct it if they saw it. I hope that as I learn more about grammar my writing will improve, but I don't think it is necessarily imperative to writing a story.
Grammar: I admire the symmetry of it. I look for it in the work of other people and admire well crafted prose. I attempt to emulate those who know how to use it and why. I've studied it because my creativity deserves to be conveyed succinctly, with clarity and with elegance. But how much of it do I really understand? And if I knew how imperfect and clumsy my application of it was, and how much it forgives me under the auspices of creative license when I bend it and abuse it in the blissfulness of ignorance, would I have the heart to continue writing? Perhaps. But it is a daunting prospect for me. As Louis Prima, the celebrated jazz trumpeter and band leader of the 50's and 60's, told Keely Smith on the occasion of her inquiring if he were able to read music, "I'll tell you, hon, I read a little bit but not enough to hurt me none."
Didn't Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Antonio Vivaldi and Bach know how to read music very well? And did this knowledge suppress their creativity? I don't think you have anything to worry about, man. Check this out: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/larsen01.html By the way, I like your writing style.
Thank you, Amr M. Abdu. A good and valid point, but slightly askew of the point I was attempting to make. Alas, I have again failed to communicate with clarity... But thank you for your kind appreciation of how succinctly and elegantly I failed. Prima was a self-made, unschooled, musician who picked-up a trumpet one day—as I did a pen—and began to make noise with it, as I did and continue to do with my pen. Unlike me with my pen, Prima was a natural genius with his trumpet. Prima himself did not believe for one second that his outrageously creative and original style would have been adversely affected by the ability to read. His inferred postulation was a defensive reaction to being 'wellied' in the 'goolies' (That's kicked below the belt where I come from, but I like the way it sound here,) by a less-talented, less-accomplished but highly schooled faction within the musical fraternity, whose drip, drip, drip of scorn from the vine of sour grapes was an affront to Prima's self-confidence. He was delivering a well-aimed wellie of his own to the collective groin of these idiots, by suggesting that lowering himself to their level of conventional conformity would impair his creativity, with the more pungent underlying assertion that even with the advantage of being able to read, his critics were incapable of attaining his level of raw creative genius. By no means do I intend to suggest that I possess outrageously creative and original style, or that I am a genius, though that is what I aspire to. Nor do I suggest that I am the object of envy and scorn among the ranks of literary academia. I wish. I simply express my own personal struggle with self-confidence as an uneducated, unschooled and aspiring writer, who is aware of how little he understands about the conventions that govern his craft and would possibly be demotivated to the point of throwing-in the towel if judged too harshly by the rule of literary law. I'm working on the confidence thing, which is one of the reasons why I am participating in these forums.
My friend, you assume that you're uneducated or unschooled, but this is false. Education isn't only available in schools or 'fraternities'; you are self-educated. It's evident that you have done a lot of reading and writing - and this is education. It's true that Prima couldn't read music as well as his critics, but I bet that he had developed a good ear for music after a lot of listening and practicing - and this is education. And the reason he surpassed most was his great imagination; Einstein once said, 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'. An excellent grammarian with a poor imagination could never write an epic or moving novel. Ideally, one should possess both sufficient knowledge and imagination. I'm a beginning writer myself, but I'm counting on my resolve and willingness to learn. Believe in yourself, man.
I'm not calling you stupid, but you still don't get it. Intelligence is your capacity to learn, your mental accuity, your ability to process ideas and grasp concepts. Ignorance concerns knowledge - it is defined as a lack of knowledge. You can lack knowledge (as you yourself admitted to lacking knowledge of grammar) and yet still be highly intelligent. Your IQ score has nothing to do with it.
