Is grammar the end all and be all?

[osho]

Is grammar the end all and be all, the Alfa and omega of our capacity for writing and if anyone writes using good metaphors and images and come up with a range of experiences should his thought be discarded if his is un-English?

I am uncritical when I put forward this debate. I just chanced upon such moments and the circumstance that hemmed me in compels me to speak up my mind.

[cafolini]

Grammar has never been an issue. It will never be. It's so easily remedied. The people that demand good grammar are either con-fused people or publishers that have the capability of having an editor fix it to their like. This is not a debatable issue. Sorry.

[cacian]

grammar sounds or rhymes with grandma. Grandparents are an essential of any family but they are not the imperatif to our private lives. It is up to us to make out a living for us through our own interpretations of things. We may learn and listen to our grandparents for they have great wisdom to share but we may not derive conclusions through them. We conclude our own lives through our own interpretations of things the way it is suitable to us. This is how I see grammar an essential but a not a topic for me to use as to a pedantic rule.

[Ecurb]

It is certainly possible to be a successful writer while writing ungrammatically. Graham Greene enjoyed popularity, for example. Paul Fussell discusses Greene's literary shortcomings:


: "[Greene] knows he doesn't write very well, although he thinks his main trouble is ineffective metaphor and blurred visual perception. It is true that his metaphors are very often skewed and vague, but actually his main handicap is his inability to master English syntax and the fine points of English sentence structure....The jacket copy of WAYS OF ESCAPE proclaims that Greene 'is the most distinguished living writer in the English language.' [That statement] is impertinent and illiterate, and the evidence to refute it is so palpable that it's embarrasing. Actually, Greene's writing is so patently improvable that it could serve pedagogic purposes, as follows:

: EXAMINATION: English 345, Expository writing

: The following passages have been written by Mr. Graham Greene in his book "Ways of Escape." They have been passed by his editors and approved by his publishers, who assert that Graham Greene is "the most distinguished living writer in the English language." Rewrite each passage as directed.

: 1. Correct the grammar:

: a. "I am not sure that I detect much promise in [Orient Express] except in the character of Colonel Hartep, the Chief of Police, whom I suspect survived into the world of Aunt Augusta and TRAVELS WITH MY AUNT."

: b. "In my hotel the Ofloffson..., there were three guests besides myself: the Italian manager of the casino and an old American artist and his wife -- a gentle couple whom I cannot deny bore some resemblance to Mr. and Mrs. Smith of [THE COMEDIANS]."

: c. "The day of the Lee-Enfield and the Maxim gun were more favorable to the European than those of the dive-bomber and the Bren."

: 2. Shift the misplaced modifier to the right position:

: "it is only since the Revolution that the Pole, I believe, has changed his habit of only communicating on certain major feast days."

: 3. Eliminate the jargon:

: "What the [Polish] authorities had not realized was the effectiveness of this play [Eliot's MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL], at this moment in time, in modern dress..."

: 4. Suggest alternative phrasing to eliminate the cliches:

: a. "The game...was not worth the candle."

: b. "These men [at Dien Bien Phu] were aware of what they resembled -- sitting ducks."

: c. "Resettlement was a turn of the screw of discomfort."

: d. "A Ghurka patrol worked by the compass and not by paths. It moved as the crow flies."

: e. "For me to describe Brighton was really a labor of love."

: f. "The sudden arrival in 1931 down a muddy Gloucestershire lane of a Norwegian poet whom I didn't know from Adam seemed uncomfortable."

: 5. Eliminate the awkwardness:

: "A writer's imagination, like the body, fights against all reason against death."

: 6. Eliminate the redundancy:

: "Next day [in Israel] I met a Burmese officer, a Frenchman, a Swede and a Finn (English was the common language they all spoke)."

: 7. Reconstruct the sentence to eliminate excessive prepositions:

: "Suicide was Scobie's inevitable end; the particular motive of his suicide, to save even God from himself, was the final twist of the screw of his inordinate pride."

: 8. Give the sentence a backbone and eliminate the awkwardness:

: "Some critics have found in [TRAVELS WITH MY AUNT] a kind of resume' of my literary career -- a scene in Brighton, the journey on the Orient Express -- and perhaps a hint of this did come to mind by the time Aunt Augusta arrived at the Pera Palace, but what struck me with some uneasiness, when I reread the book the other day, were the suggestions I found in it where the future was going to take me."

: "Be sure your name is on your paper."


grammar sounds or rhymes with grandma. Grandparents are the essential of any family but they are not arbitrary in our private lives. It is up to us to make out a living out of us through our own interpretations of things. We learn and listen to our grandparents but we derive our own conclusions the way it is suitable to us. This is how I see grammar an essential but a not a topic for me to use as to a pedantic rule. .

Fussell might have used this post to quiz his students:

1) "grammar sounds or rhymes with grandma." In this context, explain the meaning of the phrase "sounds.... with".

2) "Grandparents are the essential of any family but they are not arbitrary in our private lives." Does anyone know what "essential of" means? Why does the author use "arbitrary"? Can anyone make a wild guess about what she is trying to say?

3) Can "topics" be used as "pedantic rules"? If so, how?

4) "We learn and listen to our grandparents but we derive our own conclusions the way it is suitable to us." Correct the grammar and syntax so the sentence is legible.

[Adolescent09]

I have never been taught formal grammar. Yet I have the ability to write grammatically correct sentences.

I have yet to know the definition of a post-participle and pronoun, but I have read hundreds of books and written hundreds of poems.
Many grammarians have yet to read hundreds of classics and write hundreds of poems, yet they know the definition of a post-participle and pronoun.

Oddly enough, the people who tend to be most grammatically pertinent are usually the least read. (Ex. elementary and middle school teachers at most public schools in America).

That isn't to say that there is no room in this world for a person who is adept at both grammar and reading/writing.
What you think is better, is up to you.

[Ecurb]

Chomsky would argue that all native speakers of a language employ a "deep grammar". Different English dialects have distinct grammatical rules -- and "proper English" is (perhaps) defined as the English of the formally-educated ruling class. Nonetheless, in certain dialects such "ungrammatical" usages as "double negatives" are standard (just as they are standard in many other European languages). They are "ungrammatical" only from the point of view of the formalist or pedant, not from that of the native speaker. Well-written English communicates effectively. Proper grammar often facilitates the reader's understanding, but ungrammatical English can also be effective. "This was the most unkindest cut of all," said Marc Anthony, redundantly but effectively, according to Shakespeare.

[kev67]

Jane Austen's grammar was apparently not great, so I suppose it is not the most important thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323056/How-Jane-Austen-failed-spelling-using-regional-accent-poor-punctuation.html

[qimissung]

Ugh, I despise grammar. I personally believe that you will absorb a lot of what you need to know grammatically by wide reading. I was lucky that my parents also had very good grammar, but I think that is not entirely necessary.

If you find a publisher who wants to publish your stuff, hopefully you will also have a good editor.

Here's a good website, though, for anyone who feels their grammar needs improvement:

http://www.grammarphobia.com/grammar-html

[Paulclem]

I also had no formal grammar teaching - unlke my wife who went to a grammar school. I managed to gain a degree, do a post graduate certificate in education, work as an assistant in teaching, and bcome a teacher without any formal knowledge.

Having said that, I was aware that my knowledge was deficient. It mainly arose when I submitted essays, and when I knew the sense of a sentence was wrong, but didn't have the knowledge to put it right. This was most frustrating, and also not good when I found myself teaching young children to read and write and didn't even have the basic grammar knowledge to properly understand why something was either correct or not. I must have fallen back upon the "it just is" explanation without actually saying the phrase.

Fortunately, a literacy initiative in schools in the 1990's brought in packs that teachers could use to teach the children, and themselves, the basics. I benefited enormously from that and became a better teacher for it. When I moved onto teaching adults, I found people in exactly the same situation as myself - having not had any formal grammar training, and being unable to access simple explanations.

I don't think an extensive knowledge of grammar is necessary. All most people usually want is the ability to write in a correct fashion for those important things like jobs and publications others will see. Have you seen some of those grammar books? Not only are they boring, but they are self referential in that they explain concepts using other concepts you haven't come across yet. Most unhelpful.

I'm a grammar liberal. I'm not really bothered if stallholders write Apple's 20p each. My wife, though, is a grammar fascist - as are quite a few people I know. They rage against such blatant mistakes.(though my wife's grammar fascism is balanced by her unwillingness to criticise people unnecessarily). I'm also not bothered by Cormac McCarthy's failure to use speech marks and other types of punctuation. His writing works, so what's the problem?

The other thing, of course, is that there is no one body which pronounces on grammar rules in the UK. Perhaps the closest we have are the newspaper style guides. And the rules themselves are debateable in lots of cases. The use of commas often provokes dispute, but some people use them a lot, others sparingly. The point is that the writing should be clear in what it says. Just like speech, there is an appropriateness to grammar. Text speech serves a useful purpose. It communicates, but who ever formally applied for a job with a text? You obviously need to be able to write an appropriately correct application in order to secure an interview. Different grammar horses for different courses.

[Ecurb]

Spelling wasn't standardized in English until the first dictionaries became popular. Dr. Johnson's dictionary was first published in 1755 (the first American dictionary was published after Austen died) -- but spelling wasn't fully standardized for some time thereafter. Therefore accusing Jane Austen of being a "bad" speller is a bit silly. Besides, spelling and grammar are two different things.

Every English speaker uses "grammar", intuitively. I agree, quimissung, that you needn't know how to diagram a sentence to use the language effectively. I hated diagraming sentences, too. However, a writer who doesn't attempt to communicate effectively makes things difficult for his readers. No doubt not all EFFECTIVE communication is easily understood (take Finnegan's Wake, or some poetry), but in general, writers of prose should help their readers out by writing so that their precise meaning is clear. Standard grammar facillitates reader comprehension.

On the other hand, some literary wag (I forget his name) once said:


Suppose you hear a knock on the door. "Who is it?" you shout.

If the answer is, "It is I," the person on the other side of the door is using proper English, but you shouldn't let him in.

I agree! "It's me!" is sufficient!

[Scheherazade]

I am a firm believer in correct grammatical usage. It would not matter all that much if one does not know what an adverb or pronoun is but, in my opinion, it is not forgivable to misuse them if one desires to be taken seriously as a writer. Isn't it a writer's aim to to write effectively, making use of the language in the best possible way so that his stories are understood and appreciated by his or her readers? However, if we consider that a writer is simply a story-teller, then maybe it would be possible to overlook some of the grammatical shortcomings (a view I do not share).

Let's compare. Let's take a singer. S/he may not be able to read the notes or recognise them; it would be fine but would be forgive the same singer if s/he failed to hit the notes and sang out of tune?

[Paulclem]

There's far too much anxiety about spelling too. Virtually everyone is still learning to spell new words. Thanks goodness for dictionaries and spellcheckers.The standard - learn 10 spellings for a test on Monday - teaching approach to spelling works for some, but reinforces failure in many others.

[qimissung]

I also had no formal grammar teaching - unlke my wife who went to a grammar school. I managed to gain a degree, do a post graduate certificate in education, work as an assistant in teaching, and bcome a teacher without any formal knowledge.

Having said that, I was aware that my knowledge was deficient. It mainly arose when I submitted essays, and when I knew the sense of a sentence was wrong, but didn't have the knowledge to put it right. This was most frustrating, and also not good when I found myself teaching young children to read and write and didn't even have the basic grammar knowledge to properly understand why something was either correct or not. I must have fallen back upon the "it just is" explanation without actually saying the phrase.

Fortunately, a literacy initiative in schools in the 1990's brought in packs that teachers could use to teach the children, and themselves, the basics. I benefited enormously from that and became a better teacher for it. When I moved onto teaching adults, I found people in exactly the same situation as myself - having not had any formal grammar training, and being unable to access simple explanations.

I don't think an extensive knowledge of grammar is necessary. All most people usually want is the ability to write in a correct fashion for those important things like jobs and publications others will see. Have you seen some of those grammar books? Not only are they boring, but they are self referential in that they explain concepts using other concepts you haven't come across yet. Most unhelpful.

I'm a grammar liberal. I'm not really bothered if stallholders write Apple's 20p each. My wife, though, is a grammar fascist - as are quite a few people I know. They rage against such blatant mistakes.(though my wife's grammar fascism is balanced by her unwillingness to criticise people unnecessarily). I'm also not bothered by Cormac McCarthy's failure to use speech marks and other types of punctuation. His writing works, so what's the problem?

The other thing, of course, is that there is no one body which pronounces on grammar rules in the UK. Perhaps the closest we have are the newspaper style guides. And the rules themselves are debateable in lots of cases. The use of commas often provokes dispute, but some people use them a lot, others sparingly. The point is that the writing should be clear in what it says. Just like speech, there is an appropriateness to grammar. Text speech serves a useful purpose. It communicates, but who ever formally applied for a job with a text? You obviously need to be able to write an appropriately correct application in order to secure an interview. Different grammar horses for different courses.


When I had to teach a grammar lesson, I often used the internet as a reference. About.com had some excellent resources. I also used some simple poetry writing to get some grammatical ideas across in a fun way, like phrase poetry:

independent clause with an appositive phrase in it

participial phrase
participial phrase
participial phrase
participial phrase
participial phrase

etc. Poems made up of subordinate clauses were also fun. Lessons that taught the kids how to use loose and periodic sentences were also enjoyable and helped the students quickly expand their ability to add variety to their writing.

"Alice in Wonderland" is also a really good poem, which, if the kids analyze it shows them what nouns, verbs, etc. are. Many of the words are nonsensical, yet Lewis Carroll uses them correctly as nouns or verbs.

The main thing about grammar is that it helps kids express their ideas in an effective way, and as such can be very empowering.

[Calidore]

Knowing and understanding the rules also helps you break them more effectively when your writing calls for it.

[Ecurb]

I am a firm believer in correct grammatical usage. It would not matter all that much if one does not know what an adverb or pronoun is but, in my opinion, it is not forgivable to misuse them if one desires to be taken seriously as a writer. Isn't it a writer's aim to to write effectively, making use of the language in the best possible way so that his stories are understood and appreciated by his or her readers? However, if we consider that a writer is simply a story-teller, then maybe it would be possible to overlook some of the grammatical shortcomings (a view I do not share).

Let's compare. Let's take a singer. S/he may not be able to read the notes or recognise them; it would be fine but would be forgive the same singer if s/he failed to hit the notes and sang out of tune?

One question is: What constitutes "correct" grammatical usage? Writing in dialect is an honored American tradition. The writer who uses dialects, but uses them "incorrectly" (by their own standards) is like the singer who can't hit the notes. "Correct" does not always imply "standard".

I once wrote a magazine ad for a "natural" insect repellent. The headline was, "If you knew what is in most repellents, you'd prefer to get bit!" Of course I knew that "bitten" is "correct". The result was inevitable. Some retired high school English teacher called up my company to complain. I took the call. "Yes, ma'am, I know that 'bitten' would be standard. However, I wanted to shorten the headline; I liked the rhyme of 'get' and 'bit'; and I thought that the slightly incorrect grammar would seem just a little strange, which might cause some readers to take more notice. Besides, "bit" is snappier. If Shakespeare can write, 'That was the most unkindest cut of all', surely I can write, 'Prefer to get bit'." She liked my reference to tha Bard, so we ended up talking for a half hour about writing, grammar, and teaching, which allowed me to temporarily avoid writing more ungrammatical ads.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Grammar is not the be all and end all, but without it there would be no standardized linguistic structure, and therefore, no language. Grammar dictates how the words of a language can form intelligible phrases. Some deviation from the structure is fine, so long as the sentence is still intelligible.

However, every time my boss talks about "where I'm at", I want to punch her in the face.

[Scheherazade]

The headline was, "If you knew what is in most repellents, you'd prefer to get bit!" I think it should also have said "... what was in most repellents..."

[Ecurb]

I think it should also have said "... what was in most repellents..."



It might have been -- I can't remember. I think either is correct though. I remember considering that very issue when I wrote it, but I can't remember which one I decided on. It may very well have been "was". The agreement between "was" and "knew" makes the sentence sound more natural. However, "was" seems too past tense. I'm not sure the agreement is grammatically necessary, though, because DEET (which is the toxic ingredient in most repellents) both "was" and "is" in most repellents. The knowledge and the presence of deet are two separate things, and i'm not sure agreement is mandated. Thinking back, I think I solved the problem by writing, "If you knew what's in most repellents...."

[Scheherazade]

However, "was" seems too past tense. I'm not sure the agreement is grammatically necessary, though, because DEET (which is the toxic ingredient in most repellents) both "was" and "is" in most repellents. The knowledge and the presence of deet are two separate things, and i'm not sure agreement is mandated. Thinking back, I think I solved the problem by writing, "If you knew what's in most repellents...."It is "second conditional"; hence, it is necessary to use past tense in both clauses.

[Calidore]

Writing in dialect is an honored American tradition.

Here's a good example from the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pickup-truck-stoled,17337/

[qimissung]

It is "second conditional"; hence, it is necessary to use past tense in both clauses.


:crazy: Scher, Scher, Scher, Scher, Scher.

Actually, I like the headline as is. It makes it very immediate, which brings us to this point: all writing is for effect. And in this instance, the way he wrote it is more effective for the purpose it is going to serve.


Grammar is not the be all and end all, but without it there would be no standardized linguistic structure, and therefore, no language. Grammar dictates how the words of a language can form intelligible phrases. Some deviation from the structure is fine, so long as the sentence is still intelligible.

However, every time my boss talks about "where I'm at", I want to punch her in the face.

It is actually OK to end a sentence with a preposition. From Grammarphobia:



We can blame an 18th-century English clergyman named Robert Lowth for this one. He wrote the first grammar book saying a preposition (a positioning word, like at, by, for, into, off, on, out, over, to, under, up, with) shouldn’t go at the end of a sentence. This idea caught on, even though great literature from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Milton is bristling with sentences ending with prepositions. Nobody knows just why the notion stuck—possibly because it’s closer to Latin grammar, or perhaps because the word “preposition” means “position before,” which seemed to mean that a preposition can’t come last.

At any rate, this is a rule that modern grammarians have long tried to get us out from under.

[Ecurb]

According to legend, a critic of one of Winston Churchill's speeches castigated him for ending a sentence with a preposition. "I agree," said Winston. "This is something up with which we should not put."

Logic and politics have an impact on grammar. Which do you prefer? "Everyone should read his grammar assignment." "Everyone should read his or her assignment." "Everyone should read their assignments." The first is sexist. The second is awkward. The third is ungrammatical. I'd opt for the third, although when writing I'd probably recast the sentence to avoid the problem. In the case of my (decade old) ad headline, DDT "was" in insecticides, but since it no longer "is" that's hardly going to motivate a consumer to buy the safe, natural stuff. DEET "is" in most repellents. The consumer is concerned about what "is" in repellents, not what "was" in them. In any event, the headline didn't last. Our current ads read, "Just say, 'No!' to bugs." We may need a new headline, however, since we're lampooning an anti-drug campaign during the Reagan administration. If anyone comes up with one that we use, I'll send him or her (them? him?) $5 (or more, if sales skyrocket).

[Adolescent09]

According to legend, a critic of one of Winston Churchill's speeches castigated him for ending a sentence with a preposition. "I agree," said Winston. "This is something up with which we should not put."

HaHa! :D What a brilliant response from the potentate of wit, himself! Churchill is my idol, alongside Mae Jameson, Ben Carson, LBJ, and FDR.

[osho]

Churchill is Churchill. He can be a model for the rest of us to model our writings on. He can twist and mold and even can come up with ungrammatical sentences but that can promote a new style, a new paradigm. This world is for greats not for not smalls. To give an example of someone of that rank is to fool the little ones like us into littleness. Belittling little ones greats broaden their horizons. I really find some people chillingly critical. Writing is to put forth ideas and let our thoughts do not remain veiled through plummy and bloomy superfluity. If a poet can rock and shock us that is the alfa and omega of versification. Why to bother snappily?

[cacian]

I would say that there are different shades of understandings and therefore different shades of syntax must apply and allow.
Rigid rule calculates and laxed one liberates.
In fact to rule language by an order breaks the symmetries of minds and harmonies. Understanding emanate from plenty and if the choice is only one then creativity is hindered and frustrations are plenty.
I feel that one must manage space otherwise it is the lack of it will mismanage us and we are many.

[osho]

This battle between the liberals and the conservatives, the purist and the easygoing is as old as time. We are squeezed into our petty paranoiac and fetish fixations

[papayahed]

I write a medium amount for work, for my grammar questions I go here:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/

[hannah_arendt]

Here's a good example from the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pickup-truck-stoled,17337/

In Poladn using a dialect is not considered well. For most people it is funny.

[Eiseabhal]

Dialects usually have rules so I exclude them from the following comment. Sloppy grammar equates with with sloppy thinking. The worst speakers of English are those who have no other language and the arrogantly deaf - those who never listen to others. The Lowland Scots speak a barbarous form of English and most of the English would be put to shame by any educated Indian.

[cacian]

In Poladn using a dialect is not considered well. For most people it is funny.

How do you mean it is funny? do you mean you only speak classic Polish? I mean what is the root language of Polish?

[kiki1982]

According to legend, a critic of one of Winston Churchill's speeches castigated him for ending a sentence with a preposition. "I agree," said Winston. "This is something up with which we should not put."

Logic and politics have an impact on grammar. Which do you prefer? "Everyone should read his grammar assignment." "Everyone should read his or her assignment." "Everyone should read their assignments." The first is sexist. The second is awkward. The third is ungrammatical. I'd opt for the third, although when writing I'd probably recast the sentence to avoid the problem.


HaHa! :D What a brilliant response from the potentate of wit, himself! Churchill is my idol, alongside Mae Jameson, Ben Carson, LBJ, and FDR.

I had heard that legend. Quite funny actually, what crazy sentences people would come up with to avoid the great embarrassment of a preposition at the end. And then given that we learnt in school that English (as a foreign language) puts the preposition at the end! :lol:
There is a difference in the style though, between preposition at the end or in the front. Probably the problem started when English speakers left off the 'wherefroms' and 'whereofs' as well as all their counterparts (wherewiths and things) in normal speech and started to separate them into 'from which' and 'of which'. Then the 'which' went altogether and then what do you do with your preposition? Confusion abound. Or they maybe saw the 'wherefrom' as a separable thing like in German and thus put it at the end, then abolishing the 'which' (1st part) because they couldn't remember what it was doing there.
Personally, we (as translators :D) opt for the preposition at the end in less formal, easy to read texts, and preposition in the front for formal texts (contracts and things).

As to those three sentences there, I'd probably also try and avoid the problem. If writing a formal thing like a contract, I'd definitely opt for the first option, because it is an older way of saying things (the he is a remnant of grammatical gender). An ignorant author/journalist wrote a nonsense article about German being stuck in the 1880s recently, merely because of grammatical gender. I have no patience with these people. The fact that English also (until roughly the 1550s) used to refer to some things as hes or shes (like ships and England!) has nothing to do with the idea that we see a man or woman when we think about that. It's not sexist at all, it's merely force of habit.

[Ecurb]

Writing is to put forth ideas and let our thoughts do not remain veiled through plummy and bloomy superfluity.... Why to bother snappily?

I'll grant that "writing is to... let our thoughts do not remain veiled." It's just that I have no idea what it means.

[cacian]

Writing is an ideology that curbs theology into mythology and it is up to us to specific its analogy. One write to expect facts and we read to expect meanings. If then grammar enters into it with a bullet force then the turn in which the facts enter into writing is regimented dismantled and my willingness to read grammar from meaning is an impossible task.
I do not quarrel about grammar as much as I quarrel about what I should say in the way I feel it should it be said. It is not everyone cup of tea but it is mine. :)

[Ecurb]

One write to expect facts and we read to expect meanings. :)

My expectation of meanings are often disappointed.....

[cacian]

My expectation of meanings are often disappointed.....

In what ways are you disappointed?

[Ecurb]

In what ways are you disappointed?

I can't understand your posts (or osho's) -- their grammar renders them incomprehensible. Take this sentence: "Writing is an ideology that curbs theology into mythology and it is up to us to specific its analogy."

What does the verb "curb" mean? One "curbs" a dog so that it doesn't defecate in the middle of the sidewalk. But how is theology "curbed" into mythology? I know of no other way in which "curb" can be used as a verb. How does one "specific its analogy"? I have no idea what that means. "

"Writing is an ideology"? What does that mean?

[cacian]

Hi Ecurb and I appreciate what you are saying.

To curb as in a learning curb or like a curb in a graph. It looks like a semi circle.
In this sentence:

Take this sentence: "Writing is an ideology that curbs theology into mythology and it is up to us to specific its analogy."

Is it the grammar or the meaning?
If it is the meaning then this what I mean:

I often write in double meanings ie I project an idea onto another one to mean something else or not.

''To write is an ideology'' as in:
to write is to rationalise/think.

''that curbs theology into mythology'' as in:
that turns or merges towards a feeling that it is about diety/idealism but then it appears to be just a myth then the actual truth/feeling.

So to write is to imagine that an idea/a word would eventually reach up/culminate to a position of godliness /power but then an eventual distimulus bends the idea/feeling to lean towards a myth rather then a kick.

''and it is up to us to specific its analogy'' means:
it is then up to the writer/reader to figure out the hows and whys it went the way it went and not subject ourselves to the fact that it has. It is hence the word ''analogy'' from analysing. Anaylsis to paralysis is why one writes and another reads and so on.
To write is to figure a way around this analysis.

if we read something and feel deflated about it then we must question why we felt that way and not blame the writer for not doing it the way we wanted it. One must question oneself why one felt that way about what one read.
What is it that did make feel that certain way? Why did we not enjoy it like it?
Then when we do have a answer then if possible one must write about it as a prologue/sequel to the story that one has just read.

If it is still not making sense then I am sorry. :)

[cafolini]

Hi Ecurb and I appreciate what you are saying.

To curb as in a learning curb or like a curb in a graph. It looks like a semi circle.
In this sentence:


Is it the grammar or the meaning?
If it is the meaning then this what I mean:

I often write in double meanings ie I project an idea onto another one to mean something else or not.

''To write is an ideology'' as in:
to write is to rationalise/think.

''that curbs theology into mythology'' as in:
that turns or merges towards a feeling that it is about diety/idealism but then it appears to be just a myth then the actual truth/feeling.

So to write is to imagine that an idea/a word would eventually reach up/culminate to a position of godliness /power but then an eventual distimulus bends the idea/feeling to lean towards a myth rather then a kick.

''and it is up to us to specific its analogy'' means:
it is then up to the writer/reader to figure out the hows and whys it went the way it went and not subject ourselves to the fact that it has. It is hence the word ''analogy'' from analysing. Anaylsis to paralysis is why one writes and another reads and so on.
To write is to figure a way around this analysis.

if we read something and feel deflated about it then we must question why we felt that way and not blame the writer for not doing it the way we wanted it. One must question oneself why one felt that way about what one read.
What is it that did make feel that certain way. Why did we not enjoy it like it?
Then we do have a answer then if possible one must write about it as a prologue/sequel to the story that one has just read.

If it is still not making sense then I am sorry. :)

I think you are sorrowfull, not just sorry. LOL

[cacian]

I think you are sorrowfull, not just sorry. LOL
''J'oublie et j'adore la vie me cajole et je n'ai point que parole estimez vous d'abord.''

Ok back to what you said cafo hehe ;)
sorrowfull with double L?
I always get is wrong with words ending with FULL.
On its own it is LL and with words ending with it is L. This I am not sure why.

[Ecurb]

You are using "curb" when you mean "curve", cacian. That's one thing that confused me. A curb is a restraint or border -- especially the raised border of a street. A curve is an arc.

I agree that writing is a form of rationalizing or thinking. Writing well requires using words and sentences that communicate with precision. That requires careful, precise thinking. We gain breadth of knowledge from reading, and precision of thought by writing.

[qimissung]

I write a medium amount for work, for my grammar questions I go here:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/

HaHa, Papaya! I was going to tell you that Grammar Girl was also a good site, but when I clicked on your link I saw that quick and dirty tips WAS Grammar Girl. It's one of my favorites, too.

Ecurb, a bit of clarification. Perhaps you thought I meant that grammar wasn't important when I said I hated it. Not so. I am aware of it's importance in writing, but I hate studying it (fortunately I don't have to anymore), and I also dislike teaching it because it is so easily extremely boring. It can actually be quite fun and interesting, but in today's educational culture fun and interesting are rarely allowed anymore.

[Ecurb]

HaHa, Papaya! I was going to tell you that Grammar Girl was also a good site, but when I clicked on your link I saw that quick and dirty tips WAS Grammar Girl. It's one of my favorites, too.

Ecurb, a bit of clarification. Perhaps you thought I meant that grammar wasn't important when I said I hated it. Not so. I am aware of it's importance in writing, but I hate studying it (fortunately I don't have to anymore), and I also dislike teaching it because it is so easily extremely boring. It can actually be quite fun and interesting, but in today's educational culture fun and interesting are rarely allowed anymore.

I knew exactly what you meant, and share your sentiments.