It's November, and that means it's NaNoWriMo time again. Are you doing it? I'm attempting again.

In order to myself in gear, I've posted that I'll be fielding questions for anyone who's interested. Mostly it was meant for fans of speculative fiction, but my first question was one for grammar that I hadn't answered yet on this blog (mostly because others have before): what is the difference between which and that?

Here's the answer.

/That/ is generally used for information that is necessary for the information you're providing. Therefore, it's restrictive.

/Which/ is generally used for information that is in addition to the information already provided. In other words, it's nonrestrictive.

In short, /that/ is used when defining material. /Which/ is used when elaborating upon material without defining it.

For example:

The house next door, which I didn't know was vacant, burned down yesterday.

The house is defined as being both 'next door' and 'having burned down'. It's not necessary to know that the author didn't know it was vacant. That information is in addition to.

The house that burned down yesterday was vacant.

It's relevant to know what house was vacant. We restrict the clause /burned down yesterday/ with the use of /that/. In this case, we define the house as being 'the one that burned down'.

Another good discussion on the topic is here. It even has exercises. They also make a note about using Who in restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. It's important to note that a lot of people misuse /which/ or /that/ in place of /who/. The latter two are used for things, /who/ is used for people. Give people the proper respect of being alive and requiring the pronoun /who/.

Thanks to Sydust on NaNo for the question. Keep them coming.

PS - I'll be answering genre-related questions over at my other blog for those who are keeping track of things.

This blog has been sorely neglected. I hope to rectify that in the next fews days with the continuance of the series of grammar posts I began back in Spring. I also have a few other thoughts I'd like to post in between those posts.

Here's a wrap-up: summer was busy and crazy. After nearly a three year search for a job within the editing/publishing field, I landed a job as the Managing Editor for a regional publication here in Milwaukee. It was a good gig, and it proved to be valuable in teaching me how things run and how they shouldn't. Unfortunately, due to economic constraints, I was let go - along with the rest of the permanent staff - and I'm off on my own again.

I've begun to send feelers out to see if some of the local private schools are interested in my proposal for an after-school creative writing program for grades 9-12. There is a group here in Milwaukee that hosts one that runs for six and eight week stretches, but it costs money. My hope is to find private schools willing to foot the small bill and alleviate the cost that students would have to pay (or their parents, as the case would most likely be). So if you know anyone that would be interested, please pass the word along. That particular venture would be part of The JB Dryden Company, under the Bridging Mediums Consulting division. There will be a website forthcoming.

I'm also gearing up for NaNo in the next few weeks, so that has kept me busy, too. I hope that it will prove more fruitful than last year did.

Thanks for sticking around. I hope you'll stay tuned in as I get renewed vigor.

I'm going to take a break from grammar specifics for a day and talk about grammar in general. John McIntyre, who writes You Don't Say, and works for the Baltimore Sun, has an interesting post about the Language Log.

Here is the quote from John's blog that I wish to expound upon:

There is always more to be learned, and sometimes one learns that it is possible for linguists and reasonable prescriptivists to clasp hands in agreement.

What does this have to do with grammar? Everything.

Prescriptivists - as I've mentioned before - believe that there are hard and fast rules about how language ought to operate and doing things differently ruins the world (well not really, but they can be melodramatic about it sometimes). Descriptivists have a tendency to try and prove to the world that rules only serve to put constraints on how we operate. They're both right, and they're both a little wrong.

Here are my thoughts about, and my response to, the quote from above.

To me, the true intention of grammar is to alleviate ambiguity in communication. If I say that a comma needs to be placed somewhere in a sentence, I'm not doing it for the sake of causing my reader strife; I'm doing it because there has been put in a place a rule that says to put that comma there to clarify what the intent of that written statement.

A lot of writers respond with "but you know what I meant, right?" Sometimes - honestly - no, I didn't. That's why I needed the grammar rule for clarification.

On the flip-side of things, Descriptivists have it right, too. Language changes every day, and we're constantly modifying it as our culture evolves. We have to recognize that words will crop up and become part of the language, and that words will change meaning over time.

However, there has to be a happy medium that recognizes both of those schools of thought. Rules are good, especially when you're trying to communicate with someone. If everyone is on the same page with the rules, then everyone communicates well. When Group A knows them and Group B doesn't, then problems will arise. That doesn't mean that Group A has to disregard the rules to understand Group B; nor does Group B have to spend years learning what Group A knows. No, it just means that you have Group C who sits in the middle and interprets them both. That's what editors are; that's why the world needs us. (Ok, yeah, so that's a bit of a self-promoting analogy, but you know what I mean, right?).

Communication is essential to us as a culture. Knowing how to effectively do so is a learned skill. You don't have to be an expert on either side of the debate. However, if you are, you should at least understand that you're both part of the same process, and you both have something to learn from the other.

So now that you're a master of the comma (don't worry, once you've read my post you will be – or at least you can pretend), I'll give you a new tool to add to your treasure chest. Hmm, that's a bad metaphor. We'll get into that later.

Semi-colons – in my opinion, one of the most useful grammatical constructs – is quite simple once you have the basics of commas down. Here's how they work:

• Step one: Write a complete sentence. John ran to the store.

• Step two: Write another complete sentence (preferably one related to the first sentence). It was closed when he got there.
• Step three: Join the two with a semi-colon were one would typically place a comma + coordinating conjunction.

For example:
Coordinating conjunction - John ran to the store, (and/but) it was closed when he got there.
Semi-colon - John ran to the store; it was closed when he got there.

It's as simple as that.

Here's another common use of the semi-colon, and this one is more of a way to alleviate confusion at times when a list can get long or wordy.

John had a laundry list of things to do: he had to go to the bank; get groceries – milk, bread, juice, fruit for lunches; walk the dog; and pick up his mother from the doctor.

The intention with the above example is to alleviate a collection of commas that just looks messy. Semi-colons work very nicely to break that up and distinguish which bits go with what.

Table of Contents:

1. Grammar. Yes. Grammar: An introductory post on the series

2. That's It. Period: A post on the full stop.
3. OMG! What's the Deal?: A post on question marks and exclamation points.
4. Commas, Commas, Commas: A post on the use of commas

I fully understand the annoyance people have with commas. I also understand that there is a lot to know about linguistic constructs (i.e. - how to put a sentence together) that a lot of writers don't have a firm grasp on. That's why there are editors like me.

There are a lot of uses for a comma. Some of the ones listed on Wikipedia's entry (and the most common ones that writers would use) are these:

1. Introductory words and phrases
2. Parenthetical phrases
3. Separation of independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction
4. Separation of initial dependent clause from independent clause
5. Separation of items in a list or coordinating adjectives

Those three bold items are the most important ones. They're the ones people mess up on the most. I'll detail them below.

The most important part of commas is the distinction between independent and dependent clauses. An independent clause is – in short – a sentence. It is a clause that can stand on its own with an action and an actor (a subject and a verb - John ran). A dependent clause is a clause or phrase that cannot function on its own because it has a)either no verb or no subject, b)is begun with a subordinating conjunction, or c)is introduced with a preposition. For example:

• a) *John's apartment (no verb)
• b) *Because Lucy is out of town (subordinating conjunction)
• c) *If John is sick (prepositional phrase)

Commas are tricky for a lot people. The biggest mistake is the overuse of them. Many writers unfamiliar with their grammatical use or purpose often stick them in anytime a “pause” is sensed in the writing. This is not only incorrect, but it's a dangerous use of language, because many times it confuses the writing and the reader.

I'll go into more later in this set of posts, but one trick to help alleviate the overuse of commas is to learn a bit more about the function of colons and semi-colons. Both of these are wonderful tools for writers (primarily fiction writers) and can really give some variety to your language. As a general rule (when it comes to editors), learn at least the basics of comma use from a grammar book. Or you can always look it up online. Grammar Girl has some good uses of commas, too.

So back to the examples.

Parenthetical Phrases - They don't have to be in parenthesis.

John, who lives down the street, loaned me his guitar.

“John loaned me his guitar” is the complete sentence. The bit in the middle “*who lives down the street” is an incomplete sentence (it begins with a subordinating pronoun) and is additional information for the sentence.

Separation of independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction

Marcus loves the zoo, so he goes every week.

Two complete, independent clauses (sentences). “Marcus loves the zoo” and “he goes every week”. The comma + 'so' is a coordinating conjunction linking the two.

Separation of initial dependent clause from independent clause

Whenever I get angry, I go for a walk.

Two parts to this sentence: “*Whenever I get angry,” and “I go for a walk.” “I go for a walk” is an obvious sentence. “*Whenever I get angry” is not. It is made dependent because of the conjunction 'whenever'.

That's the not-so-short and not-so-skinny about commas. If you have questions, send them to me.

Table of Contents:

1. Grammar. Yes. Grammar: An introductory post on the series

2. That's It. Period: A post on the full stop.
3. OMG! What's the Deal?: A post on question marks and exclamation points.
4. You Say Potato; I Say Potato: A post on semi-colons.

The other marks of terminal punctuation are the exclamation mark (or point) and the question mark.

Honestly, I am not a proponent of the exclamation mark in any sort of abundance. In other words, use them sparingly. In technical writing, I don't think the exclamation mark should be used at all; in fact, I'd cut every instance of it in any piece I received. It looks unprofessional, and it does nothing to enhance the text. In fiction, it's only good in dialog, and only when it's not followed be a dialog tag.

Ex.

“Shut up,” John yelled

vs.

“Shut up!”

With question marks, it's a little different. Everyone uses questions, so they're a bit more common and can be used more liberally. I have a few thoughts on their use in dialog, but I won't go into that here.

As a general rule, the question mark goes within the quotation marks in dialog (ex. “Where is the store?”). If you're writing a question within text – say in technical writing – then you italicize it.

Ex.

The question, When is it appropriate to use colloquialisms in journalism?, is a common one.

These are both fairly simple, too. If you have questions on usage, please ask in the comments. We'll now be moving into more complicated items; those that give people more problems than ending a sentence correctly.

Table of Contents:

1. Grammar. Yes. Grammar: An introductory post on the series

2. That's It. Period: A post on the full stop.
3. Commas, Commas, Commas: A post on the use of commas
4. You Say Potato; I Say Potato: A post on semi-colons

It's the easiest form of punctuation there. The full stop. You put it at the end of the sentence. End of story, right? Yes, but not entirely. Grammatically, it's hard to mess up with a period; however, one always has to be aware of one basic element of sentence structure: clauses.

Without going too far into proper grammar and sentence structure (thus delving into the bowls of linguistics), there are two types of clauses: independent and dependent. The basics is that independent clauses are those that function entirely on their own – they're complete sentences with a very and a subject and no subordinating conjunctions. A dependent clause can either be one without a verb or subject or a complete sentence with a conjunction that forces it to be dependent on another, independent, clause.

So, moving on. Periods function to end a complete thought. Or, in the case of some crazy fiction writers, break up the wordiness of long sentences and clipping their language. Much of that is stylistic, though, and not at all grammatical.

Really, that's it. I won't belabor the point and come off as pompous and arrogant. I will make a small remark on spacing following a period, though. Between two sentences in fiction, there should be a double space place. More commonly in technical writing and journalistic writing, one space is used. This allows for more text in smaller spaces. Fiction doesn't really have that worry.

Over the next week or so, I'll be posting entries on other marks of punctuation, their use, some pitfalls, and some tips. After those posts, I'll most likely transition into some thoughts on syntax, variation, and usage.

Table of Contents:

1. Grammar. Yes. Grammar: An introductory post on the series.

2. OMG! What's the Deal?: A post on question marks and exclamation Points
3. Commas, Commas, Commas: A post on the use of commas
4. You Say Potato; I Say Potato: A post on semi-colons

Things are slow. It's winter and the piles and piles of snow make things very blasse. But there's never a better time to start some mischief than in the winter when it comes to editors and grammarians. March 4th was National Grammar Day. I know, you were all excited, right? I completely forgot.

However, upon reflection, I got to thinking about grammar, its function, its importance, its draconian nature. So I've decided to do a string of grammar-related posts that I think will aid those who follow my blog. I know of a number of writers who struggle with grammar - even the basics - especially when it comes to writing solid fiction. Editors love nothing more than to toss out a story on the slush pile for bad grammar: it's an easy rejection, and it shouldn't happen.

So I'll start out with a bit of a background into my thoughts. In the next day or so, I'll post some actual grammar thoughts.

I went through school as a Presciptivist*. There were certain rules that grammar had, and you always followed them. I knew the rules; I studied the rules; I yelled at people for not knowing the rules. You knock on a door and say "It is I" not "It is me"! Then I went to college.

In college, I took a number of similar grammar classes, but I was fascinated by linguistics. So I learned the nature of Descriptivists**. There are rules, and yes they guide the language of the written word, but communication and interpersonal relations go beyond the need for rules so long as meaning is conveyed. If you can get your point across in grunts and head-slapping, that's language (it's a very bad example, but it's true).

When it comes to printed form, though, one has to keep in mind that there are still certain standards that writers must follow. I work with a variety of clients - from fiction writers to business writers - and there are rules that each class of writer must follow. Those rules are ever fluid, and any good writer knows how to follow that fluidity and use it to their best advantage. It also helps to know some of the rules that allow for that fluidity.

These short posts will be similar to grammar girl (who seems to have gone by the way-side), but I'll give a bit of personal insight into them and maybe some point-counter-point analysis.

Wikipedia articles with a bit more information:
*Prescriptive Linguistics
**Descriptive Linguistics

Table of Contents:

1. That's It. Period: A post on the full stop.

2. OMG! What's the Deal?: A post on question marks and exclamation Points
3. Commas, Commas, Commas: A post on the use of commas
4. You Say Potato; I Say Potato: A post on semi-colonsl
   

Timothy Spall's character, Thomas Tipp, in the movie "Vanilla Sky" shouts at David Aames (Tom Cruise) that "people will read again" in response to Aames's visibly failing publishing empire. I like to use that quote a lot, because I feel the same way. I'm optimistic in that way.

I think that one of the things I enjoyed most as a child was listening to my parents read me stories. Every now and then I'll read a story aloud to my wife, or my writers group will read aloud some of their workshop items that they've written only moments before. It's a wonderful experience to hear a writer's words voiced, because it gives it new character. But I digress.

Children today seem to be less and less interested in picking up a book and reading it than they are in picking up a new video game and becoming entranced in it. (No, this isn't a rant against the video game industry). What I find unsettling is the trend towards that even in the parents of these children. This post is for the children.

I promised to write this up a while ago, and it's been a bit getting around to it. Elizabeth Flanagan (who I met through StoryWrite; a site similar to Writing.com) is the organizer of Raeni Day Story Station. From the website:

Inside, you'll find a wonderful assortment of original works created by our family that we hope you will enjoy and share with others.

It's a wonderful little site that has all sorts of potential for parents and children. I love sites like this that promote not only reading for children but writing, as well. Kids love to create things because it's in our nature to create things. What better way for some kids to do that than to fashion their own stories and then see them in print. It's great.

Another wonderful site that is doing really great things for kids is NaNoWriMo Young Writers Program. While I can gripe and moan all I want for being beaten soundly last year by NaNo, I can't say enough about how great they are when it comes to promoting reading and writing in kids. It's a wonderful tool for teachers, and it's a great motivator.

I've been working lately to try and establish a writers workshop here in the city that's geared towards kids (and is free). Redbird Studio just branched off and founded Red Oak Young Writers, which focuses on writers from ages 8 and up. These are wonderful groups, and I hope to provide a similar service in the vein of The Milwaukee Writers Workshop for those in high school. Writing is a key skill to have in this world, and I think a lot of students are finding it more and more difficult as they get into college to produce quality nonfiction works in the form of essays, articles, and research material, which is essential in college and beyond. Those kinds of skills are things that I hope to work with, as well as providing a creative outlet.

So that's that. It's all for the kids, really.

I live in Wisconsin, and it snows sometimes, and it gets cold. It's something we live with here in in the Near Arctic (not really, but we complain enough like it it). Over the past few weeks since Christmas we've had a fair amount of snow and a few days of extreme cold. The local news has seen it fit to describe it in other words, though, and it begins to rub a very small hole into the base of my skull that gives me a headache.

We've been plunged into the deep freeze, dumped on, sent into the double-digits below zero, and forced to brave a harsh winter. Why not just say "it's cold; keep your extremities covered"?

John McIntyre is a master of pointing out terribly-used cliche, and I believe he would cringe at some of the usages in our local media coverage (especially on the radio).

I just wanted to post a quick rant. Sometimes it gets to me too much to deal with.