I had a thought last night and wanted to ask the question here. If I were to write the following sentence in present tense, which sounds better, and is there a difference? "The thunder is crashing with such force the house is shaking." "The thunder crashes with such for that the house shakes." Maybe I left out a comma, but the main question is there a difference between using "es" or "ing" at the end of a word in the way I just have?
Is "ing" first person and "es" third? Which is better would depend on context and how the rest of the surrounding text was written?
Weeee when I do this search: https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:crashes It says: 3rd person present: crashes gerund or present participle: crashing So I am kinda right maybe? Scholars can tell you, I am just a native speaker taking a wild stab in the dark!
Awesome, and thanks for that. I found the following article. http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/ed-and-ing-adjectives-describing-feelings-and-things/ Also this, "es" isn't even on here!
No. I crash...I am crashing You crash ... Your are crashing He/she/it crashes....He/she/it is crashing I think that the distinction is that "I am crashing" implies that the crashing continues - I'm halfway through it - while "I crash" is over and done with. Certainly, I get more of a feeling that "The thunder is crashing" goes on and on, while "The thunder crashes" refers to one particular clap of thunder.
That's because you've quoted an article about adjectives, whereas "crashes" is a verb, as is "crashing". You could use "crashing" as an adjective e.g. "a crashing bore".
So if someone said: "The thunder is crashing with such force the house is shaking." - that's not first person? I don't see how you could write it any other way than someone saying it. And if you read: "The thunder crashes with such for that the house shakes." - that's not third person? I don't see how you could write it any other way other than someone narrating it. My query was simply differentiating the first sentence from the second -- the question in OP, not the instances of the word (crashes vs crashing).
I have a feeling there is no firm right or wrong answer on this. "As the thunder crashes on." Or you could say "As the thunder keeps crashing..." OR "As the thunder is crashing." "As the thunder continues to crash." "The thunder crashes again." Same word but two different meaning, they SEEM to fit for each sentence, but what do I know.
I agree with Shadowfax. The phrase "is crashing" suggests something continuous, whereas "crashes" suggests something that happens once and stops.
I've read the word "crash" that many times in such a short period that the word has become alien to me. IMO, the phrase "The thunder is crashing with such force [that] the house is shaking" doesn't sound right. Perhaps it's because you missed a word? The word being "that", I assume. "The thunder crashes with such for that the house shakes" also doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that the house is continuously shaking after the thunder crashed only once (taking in consideration earlier posts)? I could be looking for a deeper meaning. I tend to do that.
Shadowfax and thirdwind have it. Simple present ("crashes") is usually for single events while present progressive/participle ("crashing") is usually for something ongoing. You can add qualifiers to change the meaning, as you've done with "crashes on", but this tends to apply if you don't. Also: - I use simple present to state a generality (because, "I am using simple present to state a generality" makes it sound like one specific and ongoing example rather than a generality ) - Simple present outlines a sequence of events (there's another generality ): "The streaker flashes the crowd, then runs from security" vs "The streaker is flashing the crowd, then running away from security") The examples had nothing to do with first or third person: no pronouns were used. "I hear the thunder crashing," would be first person; "S/he hears the thunder crashing," would be third, etc. Edited because I foolishly wrote of people seeing thunder crash rather than hearing it.
I now see what you're saying about 1st person POV & 3rd person POV. And I disagree. If I was writing a piece in present tense, there's no necessity for it to be 1st person POV for me to write "The thunder is crashing..." That could be simply a choice of how to describe what's going on. Conversely, anybody can say anything. They can speak total gobbledegook and it could be plausible, depending on the character, how they speak, what they're trying to say. I would accept that, as a GENERAL rule, you're probably correct, and that I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate to deny the absolute in your post.
Oh well I love me some gobbledegook. All that gyring and gimbling in the wabe with the borogroves and the momes rath. Makes me vorpal blade snicker snack n all, innit? Point taken.
Since I have some knowledgeable people reading this, let me ask something else that's been bothering me. I am writing something first person present with a lot of inner thoughts or monologue, whatever you want to call it. Say the POV of a certain chapter is that of someone not too smart, so they're dialogue is choppy (abbreviating and slang). Wouldn't it be correct to write their inner thoughts in the same fashion? I'm the writer, and I make my character not smart, so he shouldn't sound one way in dialogue and then another in a thought, know what I mean?
My gut feel says yes, make inner and outer dialog consistent but I think you will find many people who dislike it. If it's too much, it will put people off. A word or two here and there, and simple words should be ok but too much abbreviation, etc can be very distracting.
Basically cutting off the "g" for words ending with "ing", stuff like that. Or maybe "em" instead of "them". Personally, I don't have a POV character that speaks this way, only secondary characters.
I don't like dialect/accent that's written the way it sounds. It's very wearing to read page after page of "Oi ain't gonna 'ang arahnd while yer phrash aht yer diff'rences." I'd change the grammar to reflect the level of education/sophistication/pretentiousness, but I'd leave the aitches undropped and the final "g" pronounced...but I'd include something to the effect that the character spoke with a broad West Country accent/whatever and leave the reader to "correct" the dialogue to how it would sound under those circumstances.
"Man, what the hell is your problem, yo?" I asked. I dunno what his problem is, dude is trippin, always talkin shit and can't handle his business if push come to shove. For example...not an excerpt from anything.
Could be third person, present tense. That phrasing doesn't have to be in first person, though it could also be used in a first person present tense manuscript. It could even be used in second person present tense.
