language

You are currently browsing the archive for the language category.

What to use instead of adverbs

November 16, 2010 in language, writing | No comments

Adverbs, particularly those ending in -ly, have gone out of fashion these days. Many advisors to writers are now advising that we not use them. Preferably not at all. Or, if we must, then as seldom as possible. Naturally (oops), this leads to the question: What should a writer should use instead?

Here are some answers.

  • When the adverb is a qualifier (mostly, somewhat, possibly, very, extremely, actually, etc.), just don’t use it. Most sentences are stronger without the qualifier. Try it and see. I promise you: You NEVER need “very”. Ever.
  • Use strong, picturesque verbs, nouns, and adjectives instead of weak ones with descriptors. For example, replace “He spoke loudly” with “He shouted” or “screamed” or “ranted.”
  • Use metaphors. Instead of “He looked at her vacuously” try “He looked as if he hadn’t had a thought in weeks.”
  • Substitute an adjective. Thank heavens adjectives are still in fashion. Many writers do this these days. Instead of “She glared at him angrily” they write “She glared at him, angry.” Personally, I think this is a bastardization of the language, but many of these writers otherwise know their craft.
  • Substitute a prepositional phrase. “She glared at him in anger.” Hey, now you’ve got a rock-solid NOUN here!

If you are beginning to find this list arbitrary and even a bit nonsensical, please join the crowd. Many writers, published and not, rightly find the current campaign against adverbs unwarranted. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that all the great writers used adverbs. Even Shakespeare used adverbs.

This is a fashion we’re talking about, folks, and like all fashions, it will pass. Take the good parts and ignore the nonsensical ones. Lose the qualifiers. Strengthen nouns and especially verbs. Choose dynamic adjectives. Find metaphors that wake your readers up. Then, if you still have a place for them, use adverbs that sing. And use them effectively.

Tags: ,

Gimme Grammar 2

November 15, 2010 in english, language, writing | No comments

There are a number of differences between British English and American English when it comes to grammar and punctuation, but none is so annoying (to a person on the left side of the ocean) as the rules applying to punctuation adjacent to quotation marks at the end of a sentence.

In this case, the Brits are completely logical. And the Americans are, well, Americans.

I refused to accept this for years, but I’m older and more mellow now, and I try to do what I’m told.

Here are the rules.

If you’re British (and I think but I’m not sure, also Canadian) you do the right thing: Terminal punctuation adjacent to quotation marks goes where it logically makes sense. If it closes whatever’s in the quotation marks, then it goes inside the quotation marks. If it closes the sentence as a whole, then it goes outside the quotation marks. I feel a bit silly including examples since this is so bloody obvious, but, well, maybe not to the Americans. So here you go:

  • She let out a scream and cried, “Help!”
  • The grammarian sighed. “I can’t help you.”
  • “Why on Earth not?”
  • What is the definition of the word “abecedarian”?
  • [Watch this one carefully] “I don’t know the definition of the word ‘abecedarian’.”
  • Here is the definition of “abecedarian”.

Now, for you Americans, the first three of these work the same way. So does the fourth, because the rule is this: regardless of the logic of the sentence, if the terminal punctuation is a question mark or an exclamation point, it goes outside the quotation marks.

But the final two examples are different. If you’re an American, the rule is this: Regardless of the logic of the sentence, if the terminal punctuation is a period or a comma, it goes inside the quotation marks.

  • [Watch this one carefully] “I don’t know the definition of the word ‘abecedarian.’”
  • Here is the definition of “abecedarian.”

Oh, that last one really hurts.

Verbage

October 12, 2008 in language | No comments

While reading this article in The New Yorker, I experienced a pang of angst as sharp as a knife. How much I love words has overwhelmed me. I know what Luddites are, but this is the first time I have come to understand in an immediate and personal way that they are attacking me, that all the stuff they are against, that stuff is the air that I breathe. Words are, to use Rilke’s phrase, the “rind, rondure, and leaf” of my being. The beauty of a turning phrase. How the tongue delights on the rhythm of words, and the mind on their improbably origins.

So, what shall we make of this:

“The most revealing moment happened earlier, when she was asked about Obama’s attack on McCain’s claim that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. ‘Well,’ Palin said, ‘it was an unfair attack on the verbage that Senator McCain chose to use, because the fundamentals, as he was having to explain afterwards, he means our workforce, he means the ingenuity of the American people. And of course that is strong, and that is the foundation of our economy. So that was an unfair attack there, again, based on verbage that John McCain used.’ This is certainly doing rather than mere talking, and what is being done is the coinage of ‘verbage.’ It would be hard to find a better example of the Republican disdain for words than that remarkable term, so close to garbage, so far from language. ”

I think I want to cry.

Tags: , , , ,

Array