Discussion in 'Word Mechanics' started by waitingforzion, Jun 3, 2016.
It's clear enough, but overly complicated, which meant I still had to read through it a few times to get it. If you feel that's an acceptable trade-off for lyricism, job done. If you want it to be enjoyable to read, imo, simplify a bit. The first sentence is fine. I'd abbreviate the second to something like "Though her ego could wax in her anger because of the rudeness of others, the light of empathy was in her countenance when the sadness of her friend was before her". Still quite flowery, but fewer clauses/phrases. Up to you, though, obviously.
Is that easier to understand?
I know some people love these flowery types of writings, I'm not one of them. I see both of those passages and my brain just goes WTF. I could probably figure out the meaning if I spent enough time on it, but most of the time when I see this sort of thing I just move on.
The second one is much much easier to understand!
the very very last part is still weird and requires some time and rereading to process, but I got it eventually.
Somewhat, but it does also have a different/abbreviated meaning, given the previous bit mentioned not only her anger but also her kindness and empathy. I don't quite understand the "stay the anger of her friend" part, either.
Is this sentence clear enough?
My biggest concern isn't if it's clear - it's what it's for. Is it a poem or part of an story of sort?
As most have said here - it's understandable, but if you have to go through a text over and over it's sort of hard to enjoy.
Strange, I thought I entered a response to this an hour ago.
It's wordy but it's clear enough to be understandable. I'm curious as to why you want to write sentences that even you aren't sure are clear?
I got the first and the third. The second made no sense to me. Maybe you'd like to rephrase.
I feel like there are too many commas in the third one. It would read more easily with a dash.
"You -- who became my tutor after you became my friend -- rejected me forever, believing the lie that I meant to offend you..."
Are you trying to sound old-fashioned? Those geezers from the 18th and 19th century really circled subjects in their writing, and yours is kind of echoing that, but it's sort of... clumsy (if that makes any sense). I suggest more variety in your punctuation; you use an abundance of commas where instead you might use semicolons, colons, and dashes in addition to the commas.
Where do I learn how to use good punctuation?
Although Grammarly.com has some good articles.
My best suggestion would just be to read books, honestly. Whatever you can get your hands on. I never received any formal lessons on semicolons and dashes -- I was just taught that semicolons could replace a comma and a conjunction, and the only thing anyone ever said about dashes was a critique in an essay where they told me I needed to hit the button twice (--) instead of once (-). As for comma use, I have found that the best remedy for over-using commas is simply to write something and have someone who knows their grammar (like an english major or people here) check it for you. That way you can learn from your mistakes. Or if that isn't fast enough for you, read it aloud. You should pause wherever there is a comma, and if the pause seems wrongly placed, it probably is; you should delete that comma.
Here is something from UNC, and here is something from a grammar book, and here is something from Penn state.
There are books. Also, you could write conventional prose, purely for the purpose of mastering punctuation, and put it in the Review Room, specifically requesting a SPAG review.
Separate names with a comma.