So, my girlfriend who is a doctor recently gave me a book as a present for my first piece of writing work that is paid for and published. Let me take a moment out for some smugness and a sense of achievement. Okay, I am done. I know its my first step in a long journey before I achieve my end goal.. but I am so stoked over this. Anyways, back on topic.. the book my gf gave me was the new version of, "The elements of style". I honestly thought I knew the English language before I got my hands on that book, and now I realize how thick I am after trying to read that book. Ill give you an example; It says:"This rule refers especially to loose sentences of a particular type, those consisting of two co-ordinate clauses, the second introduced by a conjunction or relative." I read that as: "blah blah blah blah blah" While I can understand the the rules through the examples they use, I cant understand the rules by reading them in plain English. Is there an idiots guide to this book? Should I be taking note of the rules put forward in it? For instance, I like breaking up a sentence a lot, while keeping it fluid. I normally do it with like this... and then move onto the next point or bring in a random thought... then get back on topic.
"This rule refers especially to loose sentences of a particular type, those consisting of two co-ordinate clauses, the second introduced by a conjunction or relative." A coordinate clause is a clause belonging to a series of two or more clauses which are not syntactically dependent one on another, and are joined by means of coordinating conjunction, connective, paratoxis. Ex: I will go home and he will go to work. Ex: John likes hamburgers, but Mary prefers hot dogs. Ex: We might go to Seattle, or we might go to California.
The old version, Strunk and White, does not suck like that one. Lots of used book stores will have copies for a couple of bucks.
This book is the Idiot's Guide. If you want something truly droll, try the Chicago Manual of Style. That is exactly the opposite of fluid. It is very jerky. You are using the ellipses to demarcate a non-essential clause. Years ago a reviewer of my writing asked "What's with all the non-essential clauses? I know that you know that these clauses are not essential because you enclosed them in parentheses. Rewrite. Make those non-essential clauses their own sentences if the material is essential, delete them if they truly are non-essential." My copy of Strunk&White, Third Edition (1979), has exactly the same rule. Even the original by Strunk only (1918) also appears to have exactly the same rule: http://www.bartleby.com/141/.
Thanks - I was misleading. I was objecting not to the rule, but to the edition of the book. It has been modernized from earlier versions, and some of the differences bother me. The whole point of the thing was that it was "the little book" - elegant, concise, and cut to the chase. All writers like things their readers like much less. Hence the book - a work of compassion for readers.
As Ice pointed out, the writer is not writing for his own enjoyment; he is writing to communicate something to the reader. If you're writing certain styles of poetry, then the rules are loose and you're allowed to write almost anything you want so long as it communicates. Of course the test comes when someone tries to read it. If you're writing fiction, then your dialog (everything within quotation marks) is exactly what the characters are saying. It follows the rules of style for speech, which are looser than the rules for writing. In addition, each character's dialog is crafted to represent the actual way that character would speak, including all of his errors and meanderings. But for everything else, you have to follow the rules of style for writing, and your book spells them out very well. Of course English is a democratic language rather than authoritarian so different organizations have slightly different style rules, but most of the principles are universal. Your goal is to communicate clearly, consistently and efficiently. That means you have to leave much of your personality out of it. You'll eventually develop a style of your own that is based upon the way you explain things, your choice of words, and the level of understanding you expect from your reader. But you won't be putting in things just because you like them. The ellipses in your example ( ... is called an "ellipsis" and the plural is "ellipses") are not only distracting but unnecessary. Commas would do the job just fine. In professional writing, an ellipsis is usually used to show that something has been left out: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men... are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." The ellipsis indicates that I omitted the part about being created equal because that's not the part of the Declaration of Independence I want to talk about. Also, your sentence doesn't make sense. "I normally do it with like this..." That's not grammatically correct. I know you're not writing for publication here and we all know what you meant. But if you plan on being a professional writer you have to treat every sentence you write as an exercise to keep your skills honed. Look for your errors. It's all right to write in colloquial language, but there's no reason to allow errors to go uncorrected. It's good practice.
forget about that book. e b white right? ive got it too. to me it seems like he is nothing more than a smug know-it-all writing dumb rules that you don't need to follow (like, you shouldn't use this word because it's "annoying" or because it's better to use this word instead). Don't pay attention to e b white's advice. just write how you like. and don't worry about not knowing the technical teerms like "coordinate clauses" and "relatives" and such. As long as you have a good grasp of the language and an understanding of how it ought to be written/spoken, all of that is unnecessary. some people just have a natural, innate grasp of language. if you can understand the examples, well, thats all you really need.
I'm an editor, and if you write for me I'll expect you to follow the rules of style. I agree that some of them are a little pedantic and can be winked at, but in general they result in easier reading and fewer misunderstandings for the reader. You can use one of the university style manuals or one from a newspaper if you like those better than Strunk & White, but until you know the rules intuitively you'd better pick one and use it. Otherwise your work is going to come back covered with blue pencil. I'd much rather be commenting on tone and content, than have to spend my time marking up syntax and punctuation. I have no choice with technical writing, because most techies have poor "people skills" and that includes their ability to communicate; I consider myself lucky if I can barely understand what they're trying to say. But for serious writing there's no excuse. Considering the number of bonehead errors in your post, you're in no position to be giving anyone advice on writing.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Don't you think these skills can be brought up without books skills. Just an intuitive lust for wordplay and an explicit goal for efficiency? What I'm asking of you is, to tell me if I'm ignorantly writing jibberish, or simply what outstanding errors I've committed to in this paragraph. (A 3rd party review gives hope)
Indeed. If I had my way, there would be a sticky at the head of every subforum here with a link to this: http://www.bartleby.com/141/ It amazes me how few people even know of these rules today. But then again, I'm often told here that I'm an anal bastard when it comes to spelling and grammar... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Don't Do you think these skills can be brought up without books skills? You are asking a question; use the correct punctuation. The question as written involves a double negative. Don't do that. Just an intuitive lust for wordplay and an explicit goal for efficiency? This is not a sentence, it is trite, and it does not relate to the opening question. What I'm asking of you is, to tell me if I'm ignorantly writing jibberish, or simply what outstanding errors I've committed to in this paragraph. You committed several errors. Unless you made these errors intentionally, you did not commit to them. I couldn't restrain myself from responding to the request for a 3rd party review.
I'm not willing to bet my own money on my interpretation of those sentences, but if I understand their intended meanings correctly I do agree with their assertions. If you have a good grasp of the language as best written or spoken in the relevant circumstances, and are capable of formulating explicit goals for its efficient employment and evaluating your achievement of them, you probably don't need a handbook such as Strunk&White. You might notice, though, that other such competents often keep such books around, for some reason. But people who get bent out of shape about even little guides like that one usually provide better examples of this phenomenon: http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/011800hth-behavior-incompetents.html, than of the benefits of some kind of intuitive approach that rejects correction by others.
Don't you think these skills can be [brought up] "acquired" without [books skills] "learning skills from books?" [You left out the question mark.]. [Just] "With only" an intuitive lust for wordplay and an [explicit] [Huh? What do you mean by "explicit?"] goal [for] "of" efficiency? What I'm asking of you is[,] [no comma] to tell me if I'm ignorantly writing [jibberish] "gibberish," or "to" simply "tell me" what outstanding errors I've [committed] [awkward, "made" is much better] [to] ["committed to" does not mean the same thing as "committed"] in this paragraph. (A [3rd party] [spell out "third" and in general any numeral less than twenty unless it's on a street sign, and you really need a hyphen in "third-party" when you're using a compound noun as an adjective unless it's come into common use] review [gives] "would give me" hope) [You left out the closing period, and the parentheses don't add anything except unnecessarily intricate punctuation.]
The title of that NY Times article -- "Among the Inept, Researchers Discover, Ignorance Is Bliss" -- illustrates why those who are not competent with language disdain such guides. They don't need even a thin little guide because they already know they write good. (BTW, that was intentional abuse of language there.) Those who are competent tend to keep such guides around precisely because "he who knows best knows how little he knows." Suppose I am writing a paper that should follow the Chicago Manual of Style. What is their rule on serial commas? (Answer: "This, that, and the other".) On references? (Answer: I don't know and I don't care; I'll just find a BibTeX style that satisfies those rules.) My references will look perfect precisely because I used the right style sheet. That should give the reviewer/editor the (mis)impression that there isn't much to critique here. However, reviewers and editors need to apply their red or blue pencils somewhere. They aren't doing their job if they don't find some fault. One must always give the reviewer/editor some trivial errors to correct lest they poke too deeply at the content. A personal example of why authors must throw editors a bone: Long ago I coauthored a white paper on human spaceflight. Some incompetent editor changed every occurrence of "extravehicular activity" to "activity with extra vehicles" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -- and then sent the paper directly to the printer. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Rule Number 1 in writing something that will go through an editor: Always throw the editor a bone. Given that the paper should have been written according to the Chicago Manual of Style, I might well consistently have omitted the serial comma throughout the paper. Fixing those should keep the editor quite busy. I would similarly have used serial commas throughout if the guidelines had been to write according to the New York Times stylebook.
Thanks for the two edits, I'm going to memorize those unmasked mistakes as they are really quite pleasing to finally see. Ignorance is a tumultuous thing. And feel free to edit anything I write if you ever want.
Thanks for the encouragement, but not all the members feel that way. As a result, the Moderators' Elders' Council ruled that we're not even allowed to correct typos. Not even the misspelling of a word in a foreign language.
