From grammar to grammar

[Leila]

Hi everyone

Having a strong grasp on grammar is clearly key to being taken seriously as a good writer.

Now, the only thing, well one of the many things I'm not sure of actually, is how much grammar does one have to study before one could consider themselves proficient? Grammar as a field of knowledge just seems so expansive, rippling out in every possible direction.

Can I seek your advice in this regard?

Thanks

[polymath]

Basic competency with a language's conventions and principles provides tools for conveying information effectively. Expert proficiency provides tools for evaluating the methods for conveying that information.

I doubt a reader or creative writer needs to know the hundred prescriptive usages and the uncountable descriptive usages of commas. An editor doesn't need to know them all, but should have handy and familiar references for finding guidance and making informed decisions.

A good editor uses valid and open-minded judgment for areas that are open to interpretation. And there are many areas of grammar that are open to interpretation. Language is alive and ever changing. A competent editor keeps two fundamental questions in mind; is the meaning clear? will well-intended revision suggestions compromise meaning, voice, or creative flair?

A proficient writer might have one or two grammar references for guidance. Little Brown's The Little Brown Handbook is a basic grammar primer suitable for grammar reference. It's not basic in the sense that it's a primary school grammar reference, but basic in the sense that it's comprehensive enough to meet most writing needs.

A comprehensive and up-to-date dictionary is another basic grammar tool. Besides spellings, a good one has sections on basic grammar rules, includes one-word, two-word, or hypenated word references, and distinguishes preferences between main and variant spellings and forms: prologue and prolog and gray and grey, for example. Since the Internet came into being there's been big changes in word compounding caused by descriptive usages. Co-operate was always hyphened prior to the '70s. It is now all but universally compounded. Hyphen-separated prefixes have been in a state of flux for decades. Coauthor is the widely-preferred contemporary prescriptive form; however, co-author isn't verbotten, Although the latter could be considered behind the times and easier to read for its familiarity, the same information is there and equally easy to read and understand in either. The trend in English language conventions is toward downstyling punctuation, capital case, and hyphenation--and open to interpretation--downstyling syntax and diction.

The third reference for writers' reference bookshelves I recommend is an English usage dictionary. Usage dictionaries provide guidance on prescriptive and descriptive usages of language. Their guidance entries are often in a firm and convincing yet ambiguous voice. Questioning the difference between objective and subjective case whom and who? Answers in usage dictionaries are about as clear as mud. In general, usage dictionaries definitively define prescriptive usages and make allowances for descriptive usages. They give useful advice and leave the prescriptive decisions up to a writer's judgment and self-imposed rules. In other words, usage dictionaries foster thinking and deciding for one's self.

It seems the advice to use thesaurus references and use them cautiously is so widespread that I'll make no comments on that can of worms. Wait. Okay. Sorry. Some comment anon.

A style manual is not a necessity for a writer's grammar proficiency. One or more are for an editor. Chicago Manual of Style and Words Into Type are the main U.S. English style manuals for prose publications. A style manual is by no means sufficiently comprehensive to cover every contingency, but familiarity with style conventions prompts effective solutions.

Basic competency in grammar skills generally comes from how native users hear a language. A working method for discerning comma usage is to read aloud and insert commas where soft stops occur, omit them where there's no pauses, like in serial comma usage. I came, I saw, I conquered. However, a prescriptive grammarian might insist that full stops be used instead. Might periods spoil the flow and power of that statement, though?

Ever wonder why some seemingly competent bit of writing is nonetheless clunky, awkward, and amatuerish sounding or feels forced? Advanced grammar and style guidance offers answers. Category errors, illogical causation, factual contradictions, uncoordinated syntax, awkward or shy-of-the-mark diction frequently are sources of those aesthetic hunches.

Category errors encompass a wide range of writing lapses. The more common ones I encounter are mixed-up proximity of place pronouns like this and that, these and those, here and there, and so on; proximity errors of time like as--when used as a conjuction word meaning simultaneous and coordinated actions--before, ago, when, etc.; modifier category errors, like combining jumbled parts of speech, ie., admirable, recommended, inspiring behaviors are their own reward. Oh my! admirable, recommendable, inspirational behaviors are their own reward.

Without reproducing an entire codex on conventional principles of effective grammar, one more area before sign-off. Thesaurus usage can cause category lapses and be a source of grammatical vices, or preferably, provide that one precise synonym that says it all and replaces an entire string of modifiers. Here's some examples encountered recently in early drafts of works-in-progress; arrogant perfume, seductive cigar smoke, decrepit elephant, hay parcel, star-studded stygian night, and subtler examples, hugely noteworthy, mundane existence, Big Red postulated the gold mine was his since he uncovered it. . . .

As a balance against clumsy word choices resulting from thesaurus references, I recommend a synonym dictionary for discerning the subtle distinctions of words' connotations. Collegiate edition dictionaries like Webster's 11th have many word entries distinguishing those subtleties. The entry for mundane, for example, references the synonym earthly for distinctions between earthly, worldly, and mundane.

And last, one feature of creative writing principles that ought not be overlooked, rhetoric, the art of persuasion. A turn of phrase or idiom that defies prescriptive grammar rules can do what conformance will not allow, enliven an otherwise dreary bit of writing. Writing advices and writers' writing on writing come under the heading of rhetoric in the Library of Congress classification. The Silva Rhetoricae is online and freely accessible. It's a rigorous treatise on a wide variety of line and word level rhetorical schemes and tropes, and worth a gander.

There's a lot of avenues for studying grammar. I've offered a few that have served me well. One conclusion I've come to from my experiences is there's rarely an unequivocably right or wrong answer for every case. Exceptions prove a rule. There's only ever a best possible choice for a purpose based on knowledge, experience, and application. In other words, following rules to no good purpose isn't a best practice, but knowing them is.

[poptart]

I don't think you need to study grammar per se, but you do need an innate feel for language. If you read a lot you will unconsciously absorb the rules as you go. Too much emphasis on grammatical structure leads to stilted dull writing, but you need enough proficiency to feel confident about expressing yourself as elegantly as possible.

[Leila]

Wow!

Thanks very much indeed for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive response. It is both useful and illuminating.