Margo wrote:polymath wrote:Were/was, regardless of narrative person in most cases, have objective and subjunctive case distinction usages.
Thank you, polymath. That was just the explanation I needed.
You're welcome, Margo, and Quill, for
lay/lie.
I used to be grammar clueless. I remember when. I didn't need to be grammar strong. Speaking didn't require so much attention to detail. Once I had to get into it though, I noticed there was a lot of conflicting usage. The serial comma, aka the Oxford comma, one style manual authority says A, B, and C, another says A, B and C. Punctuation with quote marks, one manual says small punctuation inside, another says all punctuation outside when not part of the original citation. Internet communication favors the latter, the so-called logical quote of Wikipedia's style manual, and standard in the MLA style manual. U.S. prose publication favors the former. I guess one standard, fewer exceptions is easier to remember and apply with confidence. But it's trending toward no exceptions, all punctuation outside regardless. Something's lost in reading ease when periods and commas and question marks are always outside the quote marks, like terminal stops inside are more invisible than when outside.
I stood my ground on what I learned as I learned whatever. I came up against some hard heads. Heated arguments ensued. Just pointing out the difference between
its and
it's got ugly. I guess the opposition came from an idea casual writing, like for forum posts, doesn't count. However, the prose was just as grammatically slack.
Your, you're; there, their, they're; and, an issues too and many others.
Let the publisher's editors deal with it.
The more I expanded my horizons style manual-wise, the more I realized there's no standard style, per se. Some standards across the board, more than a few deviations though. My mind expanded to encompass the whys and wherefores of differing standards. Why particularly. Associated Press style conserves space, thus the A, B and C standard. The principle of spell out numerals one through ten, numerals othewise in all cases.
Chicago followed A, B, and C through thirteen editions. Post middle Twentieth century Postmodernism, they downstyled in edition fourteen, then went back to the traditional serial comma in edition fifteen. I like it that they are open to change, but went back to the formal standard in that regard.
The trend since Noah Webster for U.S. Standard Written English has been toward downstyling. He downstyled capitalization of nouns, setting a principle where all common nouns were lower case, proper nouns remained capped. Downstyle caps, downstyle punctuation, downstyle, downstyle, downstyle has been ever more prevalent since Webster. Downstyle favors reading ease, typesetting ease, comprehension ease.
Downstyle punctuation favors sparse colon, semicolon, dash, ellipsis points, parentheses, brackets, and braces, but the serial comma stubbornly remains necessary. Reading prose ease favors the sole stops, period, question mark, and comma. The serial comma survives because of stream of consciousness polysyndeton and serial listing it supports. Nesting lists most importantly.
Manuel stood up, stretched, glanced around, and sat back down and resumed his watch and relaxed, content he was earning a few bucks and getting some sleep on his twenty-four hour workday.
In time, I relaxed on correcting improper grammar. Because, you know, if it works, it works. Who am I to dictate proper grammar when communication is paramount. The rules aren't laws, they're principles, wisdoms worth understanding, but not absolutes. I don't like being dictated to and chafe when I am. The law I abide without question: There are no absolute, save the one, there are no absolutes.
So then what's the need to follow a set of rules set down in the mists of time and moving toward less rule-bound prescription and more creative description? Consensus. We all abide within limits so we can communicate effectively. But language is alive, English perhaps more alive than any other language. Romance languages have prescriptive-oriented agencies that guard against language drift. French, Spanish, Italian. But South American and Meso American Spanish speaking nations' common people ignore the formal prescriptive dictates of the Real Academia Española, which zealously guards against drift. Mexican Spanish speakers tend to be most inclined toward drift, probably due to closest interaction with U.S. Americans and the U.S.'s lack of a prescriptive agency. Free will rules!
Okay. I came to terms with grammar, punctuation, style mechanics, and language bête noires that set my goat a burning. If it works, it works. The opposite being if it disrupts reading it doesn't work. The trend is toward invisible punctuation, words, prose, and narrative so that the page disappears and readers are transported into a narrative setting in closest possible narrative distance. Though even that has detractors who believe too close doesn't allow for conscious, conscientious, critical thinking.
A journey of ten thousand leagues begun with a first step has taken me far. Into the language singularity and out, back again and again, emerging with a full realization it all plays in one way or another. Figuring out which when why no longer holds me back.