Do you talk like this? Like, out loud, would you say "For as I have said, and as you have agreed, seldom do I write anything, and also with effort do I rarely write anything, but hasten to post what I write in a rush."
Grammar changes over time. It's one of those things along with diction and pronunciation that separates Old English, from Middle English, and again from Early Modern English and Modern English. Using archaic grammar on a modern audience or modern grammar on an archaic audience means neither audience will be able to easily comprehend anything.
Zion, why do you write this way? Have you forgotten what normal English looks like when it's written? In normal English, this would look approximately like: When I'm writing the things that I post here for critique, I don't usually focus on cadence. If I had, I would see your point, but I haven't. As I said, I don't write very often, and when I do, I usually post it in a rush. So if I'm not putting much effort into cadence, why should I eliminate all effort? I haven't tried so hard that I should give up. How do you speak when you speak aloud? I really doubt that you say, "The things that I have requested for my repast, they have not been delivered in their entirety." I bet you say, "Excuse me. I ordered fries. Are they still coming?" Can you explain why you don't use normal English?
The key here is "tries to come across as" a sophisticated writer like Joyce didn't sit down and say " I know I think I'll write some sophisticated English today", it was just how he wrote (If you read love letters Joyce could be pretty crude, but his English was sophisticated despite the subject and swearies ) If you have to "try" to be sophisticated in your writing as in any other facet of your behaviour you are doomed to fail .... however if you are sophisticated that comes across in your writing just as it does in your other behaviours Ergo if you aspire, as WFZ says he does, to write in a sophisticated manner you have to become a sophisticated writer (which means also being a sophisticated reader) rather than simply attempting to emulate a style.
Using grammar correctly is easy to learn (although harder to remember to apply consistently). Get a copy of Eats Shoots and Leaves by Lynn Truss for starters. However there is a lot more to sophistication than grammar. It also having a large vocabulary and picking the correct words from it. Knowing when to be concise, and when to be flowery. Using metaphor and simile and knowing when not to use them. Being extensively well read through a range of genres. And yes having a natural cadence, but a stress on the word natural there, not a forced artificial one. Personally I'm not a particularly sophisticated writer. I prefer short declarative sentences and simple English, but I'm a Thriller writer. I have no ambition to win a Literary prize or be reviewed in the Observer. So I'm happy as I am. If you do aspire to sophistication in English your first step needs to be to read a range of well written English novels both classics and more recent. Get some of Joyce's work (I'd suggest not love letters since you are religious and likely to be offended by the content), e.e. cummings , Faulkner and so on Get a literary supplement or magazine (or website) and see what they recommend as good literary works - read them, learn from them - develop your vocabulary and your understanding of it and your implicit appreciation of what 'good' (literary) writing looks like. Always remembering that your ambition is not to copy Joyce's style (or whoevers) but to develop your own
My mother had a very strong "if you can't do it perfectly, don't try to do it at all" mindset. For example, if she didn't have time, or didn't feel that she was clear enough in mind, to do her entire elaborate bathing ritual, she wouldn't bathe. She would rather be a few days' dirty--a clearly inferior state to even the most cursory bath--than to take an action that was not perfect in every way. If I did a household task and didn't do it perfectly (and by definition, no one but her could do it perfectly; it's not as if she ever wanted me to do any household tasks), she would prefer to un-do it, to put things back in their original chaos, until she could do it perfectly. She never went so far as to take floor sweepings out of the trash and pour them back on the floor, but I rather suspect that was because she couldn't be assured of doing a perfect job of scattering them in their original location. I suspect that something similar is going on here.
Why don't you ask OJB if he speaks in meter? If it is acceptable to write in meter, it must also be acceptable to speak in meter, for if it is not acceptable to speak one way, it is not acceptable to write that way.
So, you absolutely do not want any help whatsoever with your writing issues, right? Because that's the only reason for this level of snark. We can all take this as a signal to stop ever responding to your posts?
OJB is comprehensible ... you on the whole aren't. Also OJB doesn't generally write his forum posts in meter Tell you what why don't you write a poem about how we are all wrong Then get the ass because no ones commenting on your threads Then apologise and promise to do better Then repeat your ungrateful snarky behaviour over again Because that will make a change....
Word choice, word order, incorrect word use, archaic style that sounds like a rip off of the KJ bible ... you know, the usual
Some history: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/an-apology.155269/ https://www.writingforums.org/threads/why-is-no-one-critiquing-anything.154737/#post-1607005 That's three times that you promised to stop arguing with advice. How many more times do you intend to break this promise?
It's not that I don't want help. It's that even when my words are clear and simple, they are still not good enough, because they are not written in a conversational tone. It seems that the only kind of writing accepted on this forum is the kind that sounds like normal speech, and it is esteemed better even when other things are wrong with it. It is not at all my intention to sound snarky. All I am trying to do is present a point, in defense of the way I had written a post. Now, maybe that post was not so good, but I would not see that right away because some time would need to have passed before I could see it objectively. But if you could tell me exactly what features of my post made it abnormal, then perhaps I could avoid them in the future. But I don't think you should do that because that is only for the critique forums, as I have been told by moderators.
Well, if I am so prone to misusing the English language then I must not be able to write good English then. So what does it matter what tone I write in? And what does it matter if what I write resembles the KJV either well or badly? Why would that even be an issue, when it has nothing to do with clarity or grace, except perhaps that if it really did resemble the prose of the KJV, it would have to be graceful. (Although I know it does not).
Writing in general forum posts should be in a general conversational tone because you are talking to other members - when they have to read a post a number of times to work outv what you are saying it doesnt help make them want to reply to you Writing when its actual work definitely doesn't have to be conversational in tone, but it does need to actually make sense. If you want to adopt a highbrow/sophisticated tone in your writing by all means feel free - but you need to realise that sophistication doesn't mean losing clarity by saying "esteemed better" rather than "better liked" If it did I would have written the last sentence as "Sophistication does not in all cases, although it may on occasion, mean obfuscating your meaning through extensive use of excessive verbiage"
I don't know about able - but in the paragraph Bay highlighted you are not using good English - hence many people advising you to learn to write better English before worrying about things like cadence. (oh and on the KJpoint - it doesn't resemble the KJV , it does however resemble a rip of it, particularly in terms of incorrect (or archaic) phrasing of words ) I am not clear whether you are unable to write clear simple English or whether you are choosing not to do so for whatever motive of your own. If its the former you need to learn to do so (there are resources in the resource section that will help), while if its the latter you'd be well advised to revise your choice as its beginning to feel like trolling .
Forums are a place for conversational English. And if you are incapable of writing conversational English, you are not ready to move on to anything more elaborate.
Because if you can't even scramble an egg, you shouldn't START learning to cook by making a croquembouche.
And these were their names: of the tribe of Reuben, Shammua the son of Zaccur. Of the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat the son of Hori. Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh. Of the tribe of Issachar, Igal the son of Joseph. Of the tribe of Ephraim, Oshea the son of Nun. Of the tribe of Benjamin, Palti the son of Raphu. Of the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel the son of Sodi. Of the tribe of Joseph, namely, of the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi the son of Susi. Of the tribe of Dan, Ammiel the son of Gemalli. Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael. Of the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi the son of Vophsi. Of the tribe of Gad, Geuel the son of Machi. Yeah! Fortuit with such grace and majesty. If you're having a hard time capturing the biblical metre, maybe you should try practicing by writing grocery lists.
I must admit I am quite liking the idea of OJB speaking in Iambic pentameter ( I lack the ability to write it for comic effect though - I'm not even sure what Iambic pentameter is)
