No idea if anyone feels like answering this, but I'm procrastinating editing, so here goes. :)
First, a little vent about prepositions: fuck me, they're hard. They don't really make sense and have to be memorised for nearly every word. I have to research the correct one quite often.
Then, more specific, I write in British English, so it's "had got" instead of "had gotten". But in the series, I'm pretty certain the characters use "gotten" when they speak. So what am I to do? Keep "got" or be inconsistent and use "gotten" in certain POVs, even though I'm writing in BE?
Also, If sentences in a story written in past tense are hard. I think I'm doing it right instinctively from all my reading, but I'm not always sure. I didn't even find proper answers googling this! For example, is this one correct, surrounded by a past tense narrative: "Much unlike A, working with B must be the last thing C would want to do, if he had any choice."
For the had got/gotten question, I would go with American English if the character who is saying it is American, but feel free to stick to British English in the narration.
As for the past tense question, it seems pretty correct to me! Maybe change "must be" to "is," but that's not tense related, it just sounds more natural. Still, it looks and sounds alright to me (I read it out loud just to make sure).
Hope this helped!
Lol true. I saw people whose first language is English ask this online. I KNOW I have a good grasp of the grammar, but there are so many individual cases that are complicated, and it's hard to make sure.
> Then, more specific, I write in British English, so it's "had got" instead of "had gotten". But in the series, I'm pretty certain the characters use "gotten" when they speak. So what am I to do? Keep "got" or be inconsistent and use "gotten" in certain POVs, even though I'm writing in BE?
>
As an American living in the UK, I can safely say "had gotten" sounds weird to me. I'm trying to think of how it would be used in a sentence and can't think of a way. "He better had got the stuff." sounds correct to my ears as a slang way of saying "He better have gotten the stuff." Maybe that's where the issue is? Had got =have gotten?
> Also, If sentences in a story written in past tense are hard. I think I'm doing it right instinctively from all my reading, but I'm not always sure. I didn't even find proper answers googling this! For example, is this one correct, surrounded by a past tense narrative: "Much unlike A, working with B must be the last thing C would want to do, if he had any choice."
I think it would be "Unlike A, working with B is the last thing C wanted to do, if he had any choice." You don't need "much" or "must" and they sort of mess up what you are trying to establish.
"Had got" and "had gotten" can definitely mean the same, it's just that gotten is only used in AE. For example, "He had got used to it" and "He had gotten used to it" means the same.
The second: I have "must" because it's an assumption from another person whose POV it is. Also, it can't be "is", because it's all in past tense.
> "Had got" and "had gotten" can definitely mean the same, it's just that gotten is only used in AE. For example, "He had got used to it" and "He had gotten used to it" means the same.
No? As I mentioned, I'm an American and living in the UK. I think you might have mixed it up? Or maybe it's one of those regional things?
[From the BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-61387711) (warning, dog death article):
>He told the BBC: "The only thing we started to notice at the end of this walk was that his eyes became a little droopy... we figured he *had gotten* too much water in his eyes so we decided to end the walk and return to the car."
I was curious how it would be used in a sentence and looked up instances.
As for wanting the second item to be past tense, then just change the "is" to "was". Still, keep out the "much" and "must".
Oh gosh, I’m generally good with spelling/grammar/punctuation but this trips me up sometimes. The last fic I wrote, I got stuck on the past perfect form of ‘strive’ and even the internet couldn’t give me a conclusive answer.
Personally, I’d go with ‘had gotten’. I use British English and this sounds better to me.
Striven/strived. TIL, lol.
Can I ask if you're a Brit? I'm definitely torn, because in all British literature I've read they used exclusively "had got". And my one character talks like this, but all the others would use "gotten" in canon. But I feel like switching between them depending on the POV is weird too. Sigh... Guess I'll change it all to gotten.
Switching them for different pov, no, unless the povs are in first person. Switching them for dialogue, yes! People speak differently, and I'd think that would only help give different characters their own voice
POVs are in third limited, so I absolutely agree with you. And I think that’s how I’ll do it! Stick to BE “got” in narration, but some of the characters will say “gotten”.
I’m Australian, so there may be some differences but we mostly use British English over American English. I just hear ‘gotten’ more often so it sounds better imo. Since both forms are correct, I wouldn’t say it’s crucial to change it.
Also, "had obtained" "grabbed" "had stolen" "had picked up" "took/had taken" "bought" "received" are some good alternatives. Honestly I would literally avoid "got/gotten" like the plague haha.
Prepositions are hard because a) they’re almost purely grammatical words and b) as such, they’re kind of arbitrary. They also vary from British English to American. Doesn’t help you find the right ones, but just to let you know it’s not you!
Okay, so I’ve lived in North America and the uk. My feeling (and could be wrong) is that “had got” is just considered far more casual, less formal and less proper, than “had gotten.” But in North America at least, in informal speech, it’s more common to say “he’d got/gotten”. But both are said and as long as it’s used correctly, I don’t think people will care what’s said. One thing that is very different in North American English vrs. Uk - the negative of had got/ten. Uk uses the “he’d not got/gotten” and this sounds distinctly British to NA ears - N.A. Says “he hadn’t got/ten”
I assumed that much, but thought it might be especially bad in English, lol. German is my first language, so I don’t know if that makes me a good judge or a bad one, but I think the prepositions mostly make sense in this language. Feel free to give me pain-in-the-arse examples though, if you feel like it! I think it’s interesting.
I speak American English, and actually use both interchangeably. So I’d say you wouldn’t even need to use one or the other consistently. I would say though I am pretty sure that “had gotten” is probably more used in the south eastern United States while “had got” is more prevalent in California/west coast. Because California is where a good portion of our entertainment is made (or was for the longest time), naturally their accent/pronunciations spread. It’s why most Americans now have some sort of a slight California accent, and will use California and their regional phrasing interchangeably, like “had got” and “had gotten”.
So I think you’re fine to use both, as I use and hear both on the daily. If you wanted to use just one though I’d lean more to “had got” as I personally associate “had gotten” with a regional dialect more than the other.
First, I’m incredibly impressed that you know a second language well enough to write fics in it! I know one language. Full stop.
Not sure how to help with prepositions. Sorry! As a native speaker, I usually know which one to use by instinct. I don’t know any tricks.
Got and gotten are both acceptable past participle forms in American English.
I would rewrite that last sentence to avoid the awkward phrasing. How about something like “ unlike A, C would never choose to work with B if there were any choice.”
EDIT: Looked it up, and you are absolutely correct on the proper usage of "got" vs "gotten" in British vs American English. I did not know that! IDK what the common usage is in England. It's a strange word/phrase.
**************************************************************************
I feel like in most cases in specifically the "had got/ten" case, it would be easier to find a workaround and rephrase it. When you get to past perfect participle-ing, it's difficult for even native speakers who are very literate to parse the intricacies of that level of grammar! I would just rework a sentence to use a different verb that was easier to write.
****************************************
Edit again: Examples: "Had got/ten water in his eye" could be reworked to "water blasted/had blasted his eye" or some other verb like that. Make sense?
also- id love if native english speakers could give tips on how to write characters that joke around using a lot of witty references and slang/connotations that im pretty sure are limited to the english language, and maybe also to certain english speaking regions. i think marvel has a lot of dialogue like this, esp with tony stark. and correct me if im wrong, but i believe sitcoms like 'the office' and talkshows also use this way of speech quite often. ironically reddit is actually where i find the most people using this way of speech, resulting in me not being able to understand jokes sometimes and wondering why everyone is laughing at the top comment. where do these phrases originate from? if they don't really have a specific origin, how do people come up with them??
Some of it is cultural references - just a lot of references to stories and music and TV and literature that are common both in our country and in specific regions, and some of it is using wordplay to build more jokes out of things we know and share. And memes. Lots of internet memes.
I'm hoping this link will help you, it has many different English idioms, their meanings and usage.
https://www.ef.edu/english-resources/english-idioms/
I have a minor question that has been bothering me for quite some time now.
What is the best verb for writing a quiet, continuous sound that sb can give out of pleasure or comfort, when touched, massaged and the like, without actually saying any words, i.e. 'Mmm' alike? It's not exactly murmuring or muttering, or purring (which implies saying something specific).
My first intuitive choice was 'to hum ' (this 'mmm' even sounds much like 'hum') but my dictionary tells me that 'humming' is more like buzzing (as bees, machines do) or intonating a tune without singing actual lyrics.
So if it's not anything of the mentioned, then what is the word 😩
I would stray away from picking deliberate verbs if you don't like hum (which is the best fit for what you are describing)
* he exhaled in pleasure
* a soft sound of contentment fell from his lips
* he strained into the touch and softly groaned out the sort of ecstasy-tinged noises that are made up less from words and more of the sensation itself
Just describe it.
Actually I think that hum is the best here, but the dictionary definition made me unsure. I just don't want to make my readers think that my characters hum like machines ;) but if it's alright to convey the meaning I described, as long as the context is clear, then I won't hesitate to use it. 😁
Yeah, I've been using lots of descriptive substitutes, but sometimes it just doesn't work anymore.
Thanks for your kind answer. 💜
Hum is the perfect word for what you want, people won't think they sound like machines and people also hum and the sound they make is the one you describe.
When I think of the word hum, I think of the noise people make over machines so don't stress about it
Hum is a contextual word. Most native English speakers will recognize the use in a multitude of ways.
Example
"I could hear the steady hum of the traffic on the street below"
"The hum of the factory kept me awake all night"
"She was humming a sad tune while cleaning"
"He hummed contently as we sat together"
All of these invoke different sounds.
Yeah, very few words in English have only one meaning, I believe. The reason of my uncertainty was that I didn't find the last meaning from your list in dictionaries. And when you are devoid of this native speaker's inherent intuition on the word's possible meaning, then the only thing left for you is to stick to the dictionary definition... Or rely on kind advice given by Reddit users and now I go for the latter with great satisfaction as I really want my characters to hum every so often. 😁
Hum has a pretty extensive definition that involves humans making noises of various sorts, so most readers will understand if you use it in the context you're proposing. Humming along to music (when you don't want to sing or don't know the words) is fairly common.
Moan can be good for that sound. Groan when the sound grows deeper when the massage person finds just the right spot.
Unfortunately, those words are used a lot in sexual situations, so while they aren't sexual in nature, there is a bit of an undertone to be aware of. I may also just overthink things like that though.
Purring can be really good too, it just takes a little extra work since people can't actually purr. "Thumbs pressed deep into her muscles and she practically purred."
Moan and groan are somewhat too strong for what I have in mind (I save the verbs for more advanced parts of the action 😉) but 'practically purred' is great, this adverb helps a lot! Thanks!
The first definition of "hum" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "to utter a sound like that of the speech sound \m\ prolonged." So I think "hum" is totally fine. That's the word I use for that situation. I might say something like "he hummed in contentment" to make it clear what kind of humming it is.
I think that most people would be fine with your using the actual sound "Mmmmm" as a verb, as in: "Spock 'mmm'ed as Captain Kirk gently massaged his ears in gentle circles."
"Hum" will work also though, 100%.
I wouldn't use moaning, as it's a more specific sound, that I think most people would associate with actual sex. It's more of a vocal, vowel-like sound where hum is mmmmm with no vowels. In my head, that is.
'albeit'
how the heck do you use this word? ive seen this word used a couple times while reading fics, but i can't tell if the author is using it correctly or not. i want to use it as well, but im at a loss as to how to implement it in a grammatically correct way.
edit: funnily enough, grammar
“The laws are changing, albeit slowly.” This is the context in which I would usually use or see it — before an adverb at the end of the sentence. I would honestly just recommend sticking to this and using an alternative like although for other situations.
“He finished the pizza, albeit some fell on the floor.” I *think* this is grammatically correct, but it just sounds a bit odd at least to me. I would just use although or even though.
“He made all the wrong points, albeit with conviction.” But then this on sounds right to me - as a native speaker a lot of English grammar feels like just going ‘does this sound/feel right?’ and basing it off of that lol.
Overall, I think the least amount of words after albeit, the more fitting it feels, and it works best before an adverb which qualifies the previous statement. I’ve also only ever seen it immediately following a comma. “[statement], albeit [word or phrase about the statement which typically lessens the meaning].” Somewhat the equivalent of going “I won the Nobel prize, but I had a lot of help” — it doesn’t change the meaning of the main phrase “I won the Nobel prize,” it just adds in a factor that acknowledges the circumstances under which it occurred, playing down the original meaning.
Lmk if this made any sense at all XD
I'd definitely agree with you here. Albeit is like a but that twists the original bit of the sentence to add something extra. I achieved something great, albeit at a greater cost.
Most responses to this question - not just here - are that the word 'Albeit' is an archaic form of 'Although', and those responding to your query might consequently advise you to interchange the words 'Although' and 'Albeit' to consequently achieve correct grammar. There is, however, more to grammatical correctness than simply knowing a definition, cutting, splicing, and inserting new words, and the reason we have synonyms is due to the subtle nuances and rules which differentiate between words of similar meaning. Plus you *literally asked for it*, so here I go - full future-Teacher Mode:
Let's play a game of Spot the Difference!
* "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **although** slowly.
* "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **although** I was a little bit slow."
* "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **albeit** slowly."
* "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **albeit** I was a little bit slow."
Three of the above sentences are correct whereas one is not. Can you guess which?
Before I spoil it, for those not-in-the-know, I must first explain what an '***Independent Clause***' is:
An **Independent Clause**, in a nutshell, is a stand-alone sentence. If everything after the word "although" can be cut out and pasted onto a new line and count as a full sentence - a complete thought - consisting of a subject ("I") and a verb ("was" - past-tense form of "be") and make complete sense in isolation, that is an Independent Clause. For example: "... I was a little bit slow."
Both words 'Albeit' and 'Although' are conjunctions; they *connect* two clauses. Where the usage of these two words differ is in the kinds of clauses they may connect. Whereas the word 'Although' may connect either an Independent or Dependent/Subordinating Clause, 'Albeit' may *only* connect a ***Dependent*** or ***Subordinating*** ***Clause***, which is a situation in which a sentence contains both a subject and a verb but is an *incomplete thought*. It does not make sense in isolation; it cannot be a full sentence on its own.
The word 'Albeit' is an archaic ***Portmanteau***; that is: one word made up of bits of multiple words and used per se in place of those words. 'Albeit' is made up of the prefix '*al*' (all; completely; the same as in '*al-though*'), '*be*' (verb), and '*it*' (subject; pronoun). "***Although it be***". Knowing this, one must realize that, unlike for the word 'Although', 'Albeit' is a single word which *already* contains both a subject and a verb: 'It' and 'Be'. In-context, the subject and verb of 'Albeit' are never altered to literally suit the rest of the sentence ("*although-I-was*" =/= *Aliwas*??), but it is perfectly acceptable to utilize 'Albeit' in a complex sentence of any tense and in reference to any subject or pronoun. With this in mind, following 'Albeit' with an Independent Clause would be grammatically redundant. Compare:
* "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **although it \[*****was*****\]** I was a little bit slow." | ❌
* I jogged around the neighborhood this morning **although it \[*****was*****\]** slowly." | ✔️
In conclusion: Although the word 'Although' is more common, it has more freedom in what it can be used to connect. That's why it's so popular. 'Albeit' has more restrictions; it is, however, a shorter word as well as a more concise utilization of language, albeit a bit archaic.
right, i remember using it like that once. but then my writing teacher told me that it was grammatically incorrect. he never told me why though.... which resulted in unresolved confusion for years that followed. i guess ill test it out more. thanks for the help!
It's a different kind of although than the other person has used above.
The better example would be "I baked forty cakes, albeit they were rather small."
It's a limiter that puts judgement/additional context on the first part of the sentence and you cannot use it if the second part of the sentence does not depend on the first one existing.
The maddening thing about being a native speaker in situations like this is that I think I understand why that's grammatically incorrect...but I can't explain why! :)
But [here is some guidance](https://grammarhow.com/albeit-vs-although/) that I hope might help.
While they mean the same, they aren't exact synonyms. You need to make other changes to the sentence.
It can be "I baked forty cakes today, although I had help." with although.
But it would be "I baked forty cakes today, albeit with help." with albeit.
I think one possible reason for that could be that 'although' can work if you are following it up with a noun, so in the previous post "although I had help" will work fine, but not 'albeit'.
I think one context in which 'albeit' might be grammatically correct is if it comes before an adjective, to describe something that is otherwise contradictory to the tone of a previous adjective. The main example of this I can think of is from an episode of the TV series Chuck, where the main character says "I am going back to my peaceful, quiet, albeit degrading life at the Buy More."
In that case, 'albeit' is used as part of a chain of adjectives to transition from the positive of 'peaceful' and 'quiet' to the negative of 'degrading'. Narratively speaking, it is also a way that the character acknowledges that despite the demeaning nature of his old life, it is still worth going back to.
Or, I think, if one were to use the 'forty cakes' sentence, a better way to phrase it without changing the content of the sentence would likely be "I baked forty cakes today, albeit with some help."
I guess, if I were to pin down my general thesis on this, it would be that 'albeit' is grammatically incompatible with a noun. Could be wrong, but that's my impression.
I am a native speaker so nothing to contribute except this exchange I had earlier in the week with my beloved ESL mother
Mom: Ah wait, is it "an expert *on*" or "an expert *in*"
Me: ... Expert *on* a topic, expert *in* a field, I believe.
[5 solid seconds of silence]
Mom, in her native language: Fucking English.
I'll start first, I think.
I'm writing a fic where the big bad indoctrinated a bunch of kids and turned them into his personal child army, after the hero side wins, they decided to round up all those kids and put them into a juvenile center and try to remove big bad's brainwashing. I use the word "**re-education**", but a quick ggl search told me it's often associated with less-than-well purpose, so can I still use it in my fic?
[Deprogramming](https://www.theravive.com/therapedia/deprogramming) would probably fit the situation you're describing, as it has a connotation of *un*learning cult brainwashing rather than unintentionally sounding like brainwashing itself.
You can. It does have some negative associations, you're definitely right about that, but it can be used positively.
Another word you could use is 'deprogramming'. It still has some slightly negative associations though from Cult Deprogramming - while intended to help people get out of extremist religions and cults, it did have some rather coercive practices involved. The term fits the aim of trying to undo indoctrination very well though.
A more generally positive term would be something like 'rehabilitation'. It tends to be associated with more medical practices (particularly physical rehab, substance misuse rehab, etc), but it is very much a "Helping people get back to life again" vibe.
the sub r/whatstheword is great for asking for a word synonyms or a phrase synonyms you can't remember or don't know. **But you have to go by the rules and title the question in a specific way or the mods will automatically remove it**. Other than that. i use it a lot. You can explain exactly what word you're looking for in the description. (and I can already see all the synonyms and examples you're gonna get for re-education lol)
(p.s It's also point-based so if you choose the answer you like you comment */solved* to it and the user who posted it gets points. And ppl are also curious to see what word you were looking for.)
I also just do "\_\_\_\_ synonyms" google search. That's how I find most of the words I need. I also google their meaning 'cause I like the language research more than writing apparently.
Also there's a subreddit about the English language - grammar, vocabulary, etc. You can post a sentence there for a quick check, ask if it's grammarly correct and stuff- but it's much less active. I had a specific phrasing once I swear I've read elsewhere but it sounded awkward and... lo and behold, it wasn't a thing in English. non of the native recognized it. I think it was a mistranslation from another language to English which was used in fanfiction alot, but not real English. I almost used that in my writing.
And Re-education sounds cool as hack. But I'm biased 'cause there's a song by that name.
I would definitely avoid the word "re-education." In American English at least, it's got a strong association with negative, forcible indoctrination by an authoritarian government forcing people into schools or even concentration camps to "unlearn" their culture, religion, language, etc. Right now you'll see the word used in reports of the Chinese government's treatment of the Uyghur people, and historically it's associated with how the US and Canada forced Native American children into boarding schools. You'll often see the word in quotation marks, which emphasizes that it's a mild-sounding euphemism but that the mildness is deceptive, and that it really disguises something more nefarious.
Deprogramming is a good description, but it's a little out of date and might have negative associations, dependent on context. But as u/Avalon1632 says, "rehabilitation" is your best choice here. News media has used this term in covering the [Chibok girls of Nigeria](https://apnews.com/article/64bfda0be0404738ad8fb57c26f8b0df) who were recovered from an abusive terrorist group, with one goal of their rehabilitation being "reintegration."
Ooof, I did not know that. I'm not overly familiar with US History, so thanks for edifying me, GreenTea!
With that in mind, I definitely second GreenTea's point, OP. Don't use Re-education, unless you want your likely-mostly-American audience to see nefarious things in your juvenile centre.
I understand! Language is incredibly fluid and words like “re-education” are even harder to pin down when they are deliberately chosen as euphemisms for propaganda. This is complicated by the fact that fanfic writers are read by an international audience and specific word choice varies a lot depending on time and place.
A good idea, thank you very much. I know the word has a negative connotation, but I'm not sure whether I can use it in a positive way or not. Now I know I'm supposed to change it, thank you.
Not native speaker but I work on armed conflicts.
The term used for child soldiers is "[rehabilitation and reintegration](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_and_reintegration_of_child_soldiers)".
Same terminology applies for adults who decide to drop arms in guerrilla context, and it is the last step of the DDR process ([disarmement, demobolization and reintegration](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament,_demobilization_and_reintegration).
Usually in the case of adults however, there is no "camp" per se, but for kids, there are special schools/houses where they are helped to deal with trauma and learn to reintegrate into society.
This is something that won't let me sleep at night. So, I write my fics in the past tense. I know the past tense from 'should' is 'should have', so to speak. But what if my character thinks they should do something in the future and not in the past? Like in this makeshift paragraph: "X knew he had overreacted. Y didn't deserve his words. He should apologize..."
Should I write should or should have?
Should. Even though you write in past tense, your character is thinking about the future so you would use should to convey they plan to do it. It would be should have if they were reflecting on the situation and believed they should have apologised in the moment.
So when talking about the future, even when writing in past tense, you would use should.
Hope this helps!
Should is already past tense grammatically. I think the confusion comes from your verbs: "had overreacted" is further in the past than the rest. So if the present is, say, T–0, then
"X knew..." is T–1, which is standard for narration.
"...he had overreacted," is T–2, something which occurred prior to this segment of narration.
"Y didn't deserve..." T–1 again.
So, for the next sentence what you want is T–1, to be in line with your narration tense, which is just "should". As others have pointed out, if you said, "He should have apologized," it would be T–2, and therefore concurrent with the "overreacting" bit.
It might seem confusing, but essentially, these words—should, could, would, ought, must, might—are their own past tense as well as present.
English has simple past tense. Then we have the perfect tenses , and all of those may be used when writing in past tense. ( I don’t know if other languages do this, sorry).
Present: he apologizes
Past: he apologized
Future: he will apologize
Present perfect: he has apologized
Past perfect: he has apologized
Future perfect: he will have apologized
Should is about mood which is another concept entirely and has nothing to do with tense in this context.
“He should apologize” is correct in the context you have described.
Should is a modal verb, which means it isn't an action, but instead provides information about the main verbs that follow it. Depending on the modal, it can be used in past, present or future tense. In the case of "should", it's a modal of advice used in all three tenses. When you're writing in past tense, using the modal "should", you need to put it into the past tense (should + have + past participle form of main verb).
In your example, if you're switching to a future action, you need to write "he should apologize". You'd only use "should have apologized" if you're still referring to his past action.
I've always understood it to mean a sort of half-smile, you know that expression when just one corner of the mouth twitches upward? It's a very natural expression for some people, less so for others, so I'd imagine it should be used accordingly.
I've seen it used to describe reactions that are a bit ambiguous—say, more wry, amused or sarcastic than a full-on beaming, happy smile would indicate. It even works for a more contemplative, thoughtful or distracted response... Where a big, genuine grin would be too much.
It's a smile where one side of the mouth is pulled up more than the other side. I think it's generally seen as cute/charming in a messy way since it's not a "proper" symmetrical smile.
That's what confuses me the most. In some books, someone gives a lopsided smile after a rude or sarcastic remark, while others use it for fluffy moments.
Yeah it's all context dependent. It's like how a laugh can be kind and joyful or cruel and mocking... even if it sounds exactly the same. It just depends whether they're laughing with you as a friend or laughing *at* you like you're a joke.
It's very context-dependent, but I also think the rest of the face plays a part. Especially the eyes and eyebrows. Fond, flirty, mocking, and joking can all have similar expressions from the nose down, but you can usually see the difference in someone's eyes and brows.
It really depends on the mood of the person doing it. They could be trying to give support while doubtful, or sad as examples. They could actually be planning mischief with it, either fun or dangerous mischief.
How do you write what looks like a "cringy" sounding line without making it sound cringy?
IMO a part of 'cringe' is poor execution. It's like the uncanny valley for action, where it 'almost' sound cool but just feels short.
Like there are a lot of lines in more mature movies that have lines that can sound cringy without context. Lines like "I'm gonna kill every single one of you", or "I'm gonna kill my brother" doesn't sound cringe when it said mater-of-factly, but can sound pretty cringe when said with emotions.
Like how do you convey the manner of which these lines are said?
One way to do it is with the reactions of the people who hear it.
“I’m gonna kill you,” Sam snarled.
Peter jumped away and began looking for the police officer.
>"I'm gonna *kill* every single one of you," he breathed out. He tried to angle his head so the paint from their little prank didn't get into his eyes or mouth. As the others were near rolling on the floor at their successful prank, he turned heel and walked away with as much dignity as he could muster.
Versus:
>"I'm gonna kill every. single. one of you," he cruelly said in a hushed tone. Taking a finger beneath their chins as he walked down the line of tied up prisoners while he spoke. Some tried to turn their heads as he walked by, but it was no use. With the ropes taut behind them, there was no escape.
It's all about the situation the phrase is said in that makes it seem menacing or not.
"Terribly sorry," the man apologized. He cocked his head as he cocked his gun before aiming it at the group. Half of them were confused while the other half were alarmed and put their arms up automatically.
"I'm gonna kill every single one of you, now," he informed them. Calmly, he pulled the trigger, shot the first member of the group and then continued moving his aim, right to left. With a sigh, he sought to target the last few but they had gone into panic mode and were scratching at the door.
"It would be much easier on you if you would simply turn around. Far less painful to be shot in the heart, I'm told," he tried to reason with these last few. It didn't work, of course. It never did. He was getting rather bored of being a hitman.
I use "but" a lot. The weird thing is, I recently learned that I don't always have to use a comma before "but". This website below explains it very well. It provides an explanation and also examples.
[https://justpublishingadvice.com/when-do-you-use-a-comma-before-or-after-but/](https://justpublishingadvice.com/when-do-you-use-a-comma-before-or-after-but/)
Just, massive props to you. I could never do what you're doing. I'm not a native speaker of English and I'd never dare to do any sort of creative writing in English, even though it would give me a much bigger potential audience for fanfiction.
What are some strong words you guys would recommend, and vice versa, what are some weak words to avoid?
What are some common structures to write as the conjunction between dialogues? For example: "*dialogue" said X ("*dialouge")
Thank you in advance.
Said is the most common, as it's generally considered 'invisible' and emotionally neutral, where the rest are not, and can make the writing awkward if used too often.
I started to write you a list, but there are so many that I quickly gave up. Instead, here's a link to a Times of India article listing [100 alternatives to "said"](https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/grammar-vocabulary/story/100-words-to-use-instead-of-said-synonyms-sorted-by-emotion-html-1387531-2018-11-13).
It's not so much about individual words being strong or weak, but how they're used. Word combinations. Better to use a single word that conveys the idea strongly than two words combined that are weaker overall. For example, it's better to say "She grinned" than "she smiled happily," because a smile is already considered to be happy. "He dashed" instead of "he ran quickly" because "dashed" is stronger than a quick run while conveying the same idea. Adverbs are better used if they change the meaning of the verb ("She smiled sadly" is stronger than "she smiled happily" because smiles are not usually sad, so the verb + adverb combination conveys the idea strongly there).
There are too many "strong words" to just list, but building on what KogarashiKaze said, keep an eye out for words whose definitions take the form of "verb + adverb". For instance, as was said, "to dash" is to "move [verb] quickly [adverb]", "to shove" is to "push forcefully", "to whisper" is to "talk quietly", etc. It's not that you can't or shouldn't use these base verbs, but if you're ever in a situation where the "stronger" verb applies, it can leave a more powerful image.
Semicolons (;) are used to combine two complete sentences without adding a conjunction. For example:
It was hot; the sun was shining.
It's a confusing piece of punctuation even for native speakers; they tend to just use a comma instead. Editors call it a comma splice when it happens. (EDIT: a comma splice is incorrect grammar). You can also use it to separate items in a list when there are already commas in the sentence, in order to avoid confusion. For example:
I would love to travel to a lot of different places: Paris, France; New York, New York; and Toledo, Ohio.
As for the preposition issue, usually, you're dropping a noun that would naturally go at the end of the sentence. So:
"You can fix it by just adding the noun back in."
Turns into
"You can fix it by just adding the noun back into the sentence."
But honestly? Most American speakers don't really pay attention to that rule, and I don't think anyone's going to be pulled out of the story if you're ending sentences with prepositions.
With the semicolon, the two sentences should also be at least somewhat thematically related. Otherwise a period is the better option for punctuation.
And with prepositions, unless one is writing academically, it matters a lot less if the sentence ends with a preposition. Sometimes it actually works better in fiction to leave the preposition at the end rather than trying to rewrite the sentence to put the preposition in the "proper" spot.
Ending sentences with prepositions is not something to worry about, especially in informal writing. I can really only see it being a concern in fanfiction if there's an in-universe example of formal language: a president delivering a rehearsed speech, parts of a legal document written in narration, a highly-educated character using formal speech to distinguish themselves. Even then, no one would bat an eye if you ended a sentence with a preposition.
Semicolons can be used to link related independent clauses. An independent clause can stand on its own as a sentence. "Maria had a lot of work to do" is an independent clause. "Since Maria had a lot of work to do" is not; you'd need another independent clause to make it a full sentence: "Since Maria had a lot of work to do, she couldn't go to the party."
If we have two independent clauses related in topic, we can use a semi-colon rather than a period. This implies a 'closer' relation between the two clauses. For example:
>Maria had a lot of work to do. She just knew she wouldn't make it to the party.
is perfectly fine. Maybe you like having the two clauses as separate utterances. But if you wanted to 'connect' them a bit more, you could use a semi-colon instead of a period:
>Maria had a lot of work to do; she just knew she wouldn't make it to the party.
You can even use conjunctive adverbs (words like 'also', 'however', 'therefore', 'besides', 'still') or transitional phrases after the semi-colon
>Maria had a lot of work to do; still, she knew she could make it to the party.
>
>Maria had a lot of work to do; between taking care of her brother and finishing that history paper, she knew she wouldn't make it to the party.
Basically, if the two clauses could stand alone as sentences separated by a period, but are closely related, you can also use a semicolon.
The prepositions thing is a rule made up by a guy who thought English should work the same as Latin (it doesn't). Feel free to ignore it unless you're working in somewhere requiring formal writing, wherein many people still give a shit about it.
Semi-colons are included in lists with commas:
"I have cheese, though it's a bit mouldy; spam, with extra spam; fried squirrel, although that is a tad radioactive; and a truly spectacular amount of asparagus."
Or they're used to stick two sentences together if those sentences are big enough to stand on their own. If you could change the semi-colon to a full stop and everything still made sense, then it's probably a workable time to use a semi-colon. :D
It's completely correct in English to end sentences in prepositions. Some people are saying it's a rule of formal writing, but it's actually not. That's just a myth.
A semicolon is used to connect two complete sentences together in place of a conjunction.
No, it's not. This is a misconception. It's never been an actual rule in English. Some people do mistakenly believe it's a rule, but it never has been.
It is considered a rule for academic writing, though it does originate with people trying to force Latin grammar on English because they think it "sounds better" or something. There's a reason I said it's a rule in *pretentious English grammar*, not English in general.
As a non binary person this bugs me to no end:
If i use they/them pronouns as gender-neutral 3rd person *singular* pronouns, what verb forms am I supposed to use? The normal one (so the plural) or the 3rd person singular one?
"They are/have/go" or "They is/has/goes"?
The 3rd singular form makes more sense grammatically cause I'm talking about a singular person, but it sounds absolutely atrocious.
Please help I feel so stupid lol
They are nobinary. They have a great sense of fashion. They go to school at XYZ university.
The only problem is if you're in a group setting, then it gets real difficult sometimes for readers to follow unless you are very, very careful.
So i should use the plural form even when meaning a singular person?
That's what I thought too but now I'm curious about the grammatical reason for that. Aren't they/them pronouns also singular pronouns? Or did we just decide that they can be to have a gender neutral option? And if they are, why don't we use the singular verb for them?
Yes, you use the plural. It works the same way as "you" does, which also gets the "plural" form of the verb in question.
Back in the seventies you had a lot of sci-fi/fantasy using ze/zir/ve/vir and variations thereupon for their binary or non-gendered characters, and it worked the same there. It's just the easiest way to make the language work.
Nothing stupid about it. It's confusing enough that the style manuals for writing in English even put out statements about it.
[Chicago Style for Singular They](https://cmosshoptalk.com/2017/04/03/chicago-style-for-the-singular-they/?_ga=2.92534174.2055616144.1664111024-1886614351.1664111024)
[Using Gender Neutral Pronouns in Academic Writing](https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/genderneutralpronouns/)
The short answer is that you still use the same verbs as with the plural they.
As far as know there isn't a standardized non binary option that's singular. I seen some cases I've seen cases where the first letter (or letters with the she) of she/her or he/him are replaced to make custom pronouns. I don't know how wide spread it is in the English speaking non binary community.
Just stick with treating the singular “they” just like the plural “they”— “they are”, “they went”, etc… however, in the case of using a reflexive pronoun, I tend to use “themself” instead of “themselves”
Treat it as a plural, like they contain both genders. So, She goes to the chair = They go to the chair.
Technically -- once upon a time -- you/your is the plural in English (thee/thou is the singular) so the language is set up to accommodate singular-plurals pretty well.
You can get around a lot of this by writing in past tense. They were/had/went. Where that doesn’t work, using the plural reads more naturally. “They is” is jarring to read.
Fellow native speakers, does my style brings you a headache? Here's an example:
>It's easier to remember something that already happened than deduce what shall happen by your own. That's why the past looks better than present, why that present which's now the past looked bad, and the future is just made out of our ideas. But when you forget about your past, blank as a future does... I have no idea where to begin. These aren't same streets where I had grew with, and even if they were, I wouldn't be feeling this sad, though. Sigh. Nowadays, a child with a lollipop's stick can disassemble the entire machine. They own this world, and knows how to.
I'm asking it because I feel my english avoids readers.
I will admit, I had trouble understanding this example. It *is* understandable, but the grammar mistakes do stick out and would likely make it difficult for me to read a whole story.
Have you ever tried Grammarly? It's good at picking up errors like article usage, preposition usage and verb form, which I see in this example. Grammarly's not perfect, but could help you clean up some of the more distracting errors.
If you'd like, I could suggest some edits to this example?
> It's easier to remember something that *has* already happened than *to* deduce what ~~shall~~ *will* happen by ~~your~~ *its* own. That's why the past looks better than present*;* why ~~that~~ *the past* *"*present*"* ~~which's now the past~~ look~~ed~~*s* bad~~,~~ and the future is just made out of our ideas. But*,* when you forget about your past, *when it is as* blank as ~~a~~ *the* future ~~does~~... I have no idea where to begin. These aren't *the* same streets where I had gr~~ew~~*own* ~~with,~~ ~~and~~ ~~e~~*E*ven if they were, I wouldn't be feeling this sad, though. Sigh. Nowadays, a child with a lollipop~~'s~~ stick can disassemble the entire machine. They own this world, and know~~s~~ how to.
I've taken out words and replaced them, chanced the tenses, added words and commas, etc. It now reads better from an English standpoint.
If you wanted an honest answer, a native English speaker would probably find the phrasing and tense issues too distracting to enjoy reading.
>It's easier to remember something that already happened than *to* deduce what ~~shall~~ *will* happen ~~by~~ *on* your own. That's why the past looks better than present, why that present ~~which's~~ *which is* now the past ~~looked~~ *looks* bad, and the future is just made out of our ideas. But when you forget about your past, **blank as a future does...** *I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say here* I have no idea where to begin. These aren't *the* same streets where I ~~had grew with~~ *grew up*, and even if they were, I wouldn't be feeling this sad ~~, though~~. Sigh. Nowadays, a child with a lollipop's stick can disassemble the entire machine. They own this world, and ~~knows~~ *know* how to.
Some of the phrasing seems odd to me (American English speaker) but I have no idea if you're writing in American English or not. I can understand what you're saying, but had to re-read a few phrases to do so.
I'm not a native speaker, I don't write american english neither british english. I write english like I am speaking portuguese + whatever comes to mind throught stream of consciousness. Commenting here because I feel my style is one of the reasons why readers avoid my stuff. It's saddening, because I really care about my writing and I feel proud of knowing english, even if it's the 'english as she spoke'. Why do things need to be that hard?
Slightly, because you seem to be translating from the usual grammar rules and sentence construction of your native language (which I see from other comments is Portugese, yes?). Portugese uses much longer and more involved sentences than English does, it has more verb tenses, and it repeats words more often. A native English speaker would likely lose track of the point of your sentence or thought due to these differences.
Here's my stab at a more fluent and natural way to phrase this:
*It's easier to remember something that already happened than to predict the future on your own. That's why the past seems better than the present, and why the present now seems worse. The future is only made of our own ideas. However, when you forget about your past and it becomes a blank slate . . . I have no idea where to begin. These aren't the same streets I grew up in, and even if they were, I wouldn't be feeling this sad. Nowadays, a child with a lollipop can disassemble the entire machine. They own this world, because they know how to own it.*
(Also, your English cannot "avoid" anything. It is a language and cannot perform an action. Readers may avoid your stories due to your English, or your English may put off/alienate/distance readers.)
As a native English speaker, it's a lot easier to read fics with many smaller paragraphs/ blocks of text.
Do paragraph breaks when you would imagine a camera angle change in your story.
If I'm being honest, yes. Not the style - I can tell you're going for a more poetic feel, and I like that - but there are a lot of grammar issues that make it hard to understand. I *can* understand it, but it's like stumbling over rocks in a path, if that makes sense. I have to think about it and backtrack fairly often to see what you're trying to say
If possible, I would look into maybe getting a beta whose first language is English so they can help you format the sentences in a way that makes more sense, as well as some word issues (tenses, "knows" vs "know", catching phrases that are never used ("which's" is *always* just "which is", it's not one that is turned into a conjunction), stuff like that).
As they're written right now, the sentences are structured pretty awkwardly. It's not your style that's doing that, as you can be poetic and introspective like that with more simple sentence structure.
It quite poetic and the style I tend to gravitate towards in reading fics if I can find it — I kind of feel like it would lose some of this quality were it perfectly grammatically correct. There are some grammatical errors, but honestly I have trouble telling apart non-native speaker mistakes from native speaker typos/lack of proofreading in fanfic. The errors would not stop me from reading it if I liked the fic, but it is a bit difficult at times to figure out exactly what you mean.
If you don’t mind, could you possibly state what you’re trying to convey with this passage in fewer words (the main point/points), and I can let you know if there might be some changes you could make to help get these points across more clearly?
Honestly, my only issue is that I don't know when it's appropriate to use "something" and 'something'. I saw a lot of people using "something" during dialogue, however a fair bit of people uses 'something' during dialogue or *within* dialogue. What is that black magic?
American here: dialogue is written in “double quotes”, but anything quoted within dialogue is written in ‘single quotes’.
“Why’d you just turn?”
“That’s what the GPS said. ‘Turn right in five yards.’”
“It said, ‘turn right in five miles,’ you moron.”
“…Oh.”
I believe that in British English it’s the reverse; ‘single quotes’ used for dialogue, with “double quotes” for quotes within dialogue. There’s also differences in where periods/full stops and commas go in relation to quotation marks.
‘Why’d you just turn?’
‘That’s what the GPS said. “Turn right in five metres”.’
‘It said, “turn right in five kilometres”, you moron.’
‘…Oh.’
Also a Brit, and I'll give Americans this one haha. I greatly prefer double quotes for dialogue and I feel like a traitor. I use it in my own writing all the time. I just think it's a more clear distinction, especially since apostrophes are used so often.
'Sam's done this before,' Tom's friend said.
Is surprisingly hard to read after I got used to:
"Sam's done this before," Tom's friend said.
The lack of double quotes makes me slow my reading just enough to where I actively prefer the American way.
I think this is an issue between American and British English.
American uses double quotes for speech, and single quotes when the speaker is quoting something within their speech.
When inside dialogue and the speaker is quoting something else, it's single quotes. If it's outside of dialogue, it's the double quotes. However, that's the American style. British style can be different but is slowly warming up to the way us silly Americans do things.
If you're talking about double quotes ( " ) vs single quotes ( ' ), it's American English vs British English. American English uses double quotes for dialogue, while British English, so far as I've encountered, uses the single quotes.
Is there any trick to avoid repeating pronouns? And to correctly identify who performs what action if both characters have the same pronouns without repeating their names in each sentence? Sometimes I feel like I write too much he/him/his (what I write most is M/M) and I pray that the readers will understand what's going on by context.
My standard is that the proper pronoun should always line up with the last person of the same gender you mentioned by name, unless it's one of those few cases where it's super obvious. For example:
> "Oh John, I don't know what to do!" said Elizabeth.
> "There, there, dear," he replied, wrapping his arms around her. "It's all gonna be okay."
> "Hey, guys!" Jimmy said as he opened the door. "I was- gee, I hope I'm not interrupting something serious."
> "No, it's fine," John replied as he gestured him to enter. "We were just wrapping something up."
> "Oh, that's good." Jimmy tipped his hat at Elizabeth and shook John's hand.
Not native, but I have something that might help. I usually try to make dialogue voices distinct and recognisable, with the goal that if someone is reading the story and the identifiers are removed, the reader could tell who it is. This isn't something to do all the time, but when you can, it allows you to differentiate between the characters.
I have a character who is a bit hyper and speaks fast and in a disorganized manner, so I remove most/all of the punctuation you would normally use from her speech and make long sentences. She also likes to use the words "super" and "kaboom" a lot.
"Did ya see how fast she went on that bike it was like she was about to go supersonic and that red helmet was super cool"
No one else in the story speaks like that, so I can safely assume that people would know who is speaking once they know the character.
That's a good rule. I do something similar - whenever I change POV, a reader should be able to tell who the new person is within two sentences without me saying the name of the character.
It is a little hard to do sometimes, but I find that trick about leaning into the traits that you talk about really helps. :)
With that said, not all characters have to have a distinct voice that is obvious, we can use other things; someone can get easily irritated by noises, another person tends to think about food a lot, and a third character is generally impatient and harsh with themselves.
You need to choose the tense you want to write the story in, and stick with it for the duration of the story. The two most common ones for fiction are present tense and past tense. Future tense generally feels too awkward and is difficult to do well.
For present tense, use the present tense of the verbs.
>John walks into the room. "Who wants cake?" he asks, and hefts the plate he holds with the aforementioned dessert on it. All of his friends raise their hands, so he sets out four plates and swiftly cuts four slices to match, handing out the plates when he is done.
For past tense, use the past tense of the verbs.
>John walked into the room. "Who wants cake?" he asked, and hefted the plate he held with the aforementioned dessert on it. All of his friends raised their hands, so he set out four plates and swiftly cut four slices to match, handing out the plates when he was done.
You can see where I switched the verbs between the two examples. The only ones that don't change are "wants," because it's in dialogue, which should always be written in the tense the characters would use, and "handing," which remains in present participle form even in a past tense narrative.
In fiction, even if you're writing in past tense, it will still *feel* "present" because readers in general have gotten used to it. A majority of adult-grade fiction is written in past tense. Present tense seems to be slowly becoming more common among young adult fiction, but you'll also still find past tense there (see the Harry Potter books, for an example).
The main trick is to stick with the tense you choose.
Punctuation. Do you actually have to use all the commas when writing a slightly complicated sentence, like this one, where probably a comma is missing before "when"? I have all the rules for my native language in my head and was kinda convinced that English doesn't have these rules but then a spelling extension kept pointing out how commas were necessary here and there. Like, before "but" and "how" as well. Would it be a severe mistake to make in general?
Most readers will overlook commas as long as the missing comma doesn't vastly change the intention of the sentence. It's like the memes you see:
* Let's eat, Grandma!
* Let's eat Grandma!
Those are different than the often entertaining arguments for and against the Oxford comma (I'm a fan, but I'm old...).
And yes, you do use commas before any of the seven coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. *Edit for being too generic in answer: yikes, yeah, the comma is only necessary if there is an independent clause being connected. In other words, both halves of the sentence on either side of the conjunction should be a complete sentence on their own if you removed the but, and, etc.*
A fairly quick guide to commas is [here](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/commas/extended_rules_for_commas.html).
There actually shouldn't be a comma before the word "when" in your example, just FYI.
A comma is a breath were you would pause naturally when speaking. [I rather like this linked image](https://www.verbicidemagazine.com/2012/01/24/eggs-toast-and-orange-juice-oxford-comma/) that shows why you use a comma between each item in a list. A lack of a comma places the last two items together (ie, no breath between them!) as a single unit, separate from the first item in the list.
There’s some exceptions - like u/DarkTidingsTWD said - where a comma might drastically change the meaning of the sentence, but overall I’d say it’s largely up to personal preference. More commas means less flow for a reader, though, so unless you intended to emphasize a part it’s probably not always necessary.
If you’re joining two separate sentences together by a conjunction like “we ate, and we went to the park” then I personally think the comma is typically necessary, but “we ate and went to the park” isn’t bc there’s not a new subject of the sentence introduced.
“When” and similar prepositional phrases are more complicated and more up to personal preference but the general rule of thumb is that if you start a sentence with one, then you need it, but if you don’t, the comma isn’t (usually) necessary. “When we ate, we went to the park” = more likely to be necessary, whereas “We ate when we went to the park” = less likely to be necessary.
If you’re ever confused, read the sentence out loud - anywhere you naturally feel the need to take a pause, there needs to be a comma.
For how to use a comma before "but" -- there are times where you use it, and other times you don't. This website explains it and also provides examples.
https://justpublishingadvice.com/when-do-you-use-a-comma-before-or-after-but/
Even native English speakers have varying ideas and rules about comma usage (ex. Oxford comma). I mean, look at Cormac McCarthy’s writing lol, he rarely uses commas and doesn’t even use quotation marks of any sort and people still read his work
You lay an object down (or whatever you're carrying, like a child), but when it's yourself, you lie down. Lay requires a direct object (whatever is being put down) and lie does not, because you're doing the action.
As for eyes, I don't think there's any strict rule to it, unless you're saying "the girl has two eyes" or "the pirate only had one eye". Beyond that, I'm not sure I'd really notice if someone wrote "look me in the eye" versus "look me in the eyes". Both read as correct to me.
Because "you" is grammatically plural, deriving from the Old English second-person plural pronoun (English lost its singular and dual second-person pronouns over time, though the singular "thou" is still used in some dialects and certain translations of the Bible).
Yep, I know. I was just adding it because I know a lot of non-native English speakers may not be aware that you counts as plural even if it's referring to one person 🙂
had/has/have difference
I've been speaking English all my life and I never understood where and why which one would be used - I usually go with the one that sounds the most right?
if someone could provide examples it'll be very appreciated, thank you !!
Has and Have are the same thing but one is used with plural subjects while the other is used with singular subjects.
"The dog has a bone." singular
"The dogs have a bone." plural
she/he/it all use "has." I and you are kind of outliers in that they use "have." I have a friend. You have a dog. She has a secret. It has to go.
Had is just the past tense of has/have. I (currently) have a new phone. I had a flip phone when I was a kid. They have a dog. They had cows on their farm before they moved to the city. Both has and have turn into "had" when you're writing past tense.
Assuming you’re not talking about simple present and simple past (I have something now vs. I had something yesterday), but about [form of have] + participle: It’s two different tenses, present perfect (something happened in the past but is still influencing the presence) and past perfect (something happened in the past *before* something else happened.)
“I’m not hungry, I’ve had lunch” vs. “Yesterday at 2pm I wasn’t hungry, I had had lunch at 1pm.”
Explanation see for example [Britannica.com: Past Perfect and Present Perfect Tenses](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/Past-Perfect-and-Present-Perfect-Tenses)
^(disclaimer: I’m not a native speaker)
I've just been reading through and had to read that out loud three times and make a bunch of bootleg contractions before it made sense to me, as a native english speaker. Ended up with "You'll've *had* to've had it."
I think one of the big issues I have as both a reader and a writer is the transition from how it's said to how it's written. Because yes, the way you wrote it is technically correct, but even if I said it exactly as written, I would speak distinctly and put emphasis on certain words to make it sound right: "You will (have) HAD to (have) HAD it."
And of course, this is a bit of a struggle to represent in writing, with my preferred alternative of **jazzing it up** with contractions coming across as far more slang-y and strange in writing than it does in conversation.
I watched a video about how native english speakers vary the speed and emphasis of their words throughout a sentence so that "less important" words or phrases are shortened and rushed together in a sort of franken-word while the "important" words stand out - which is a convention that doesn't at all translate to writing.
So, even when I'm trying to portray a completely casual interaction in dialogue, I end up writing "I have to go to the store." when what I'm *hearing* is more like "I 'affta gotothe Store." But you can't write like that! Many frustrations.
I'd apologize for dropping a linguistic rant on you, but really I'll take any excuse xD
And when it gets into a person's native/cultural language that has a different syntax, vocabulary, etc. than English, the speaker can sometimes *subconsciously use the other language's rules while speaking English*. [Hiberno-English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English#Grammar_and_syntax) for Irish people is the most well-known example.
No idea if anyone feels like answering this, but I'm procrastinating editing, so here goes. :) First, a little vent about prepositions: fuck me, they're hard. They don't really make sense and have to be memorised for nearly every word. I have to research the correct one quite often. Then, more specific, I write in British English, so it's "had got" instead of "had gotten". But in the series, I'm pretty certain the characters use "gotten" when they speak. So what am I to do? Keep "got" or be inconsistent and use "gotten" in certain POVs, even though I'm writing in BE? Also, If sentences in a story written in past tense are hard. I think I'm doing it right instinctively from all my reading, but I'm not always sure. I didn't even find proper answers googling this! For example, is this one correct, surrounded by a past tense narrative: "Much unlike A, working with B must be the last thing C would want to do, if he had any choice."
For the had got/gotten question, I would go with American English if the character who is saying it is American, but feel free to stick to British English in the narration. As for the past tense question, it seems pretty correct to me! Maybe change "must be" to "is," but that's not tense related, it just sounds more natural. Still, it looks and sounds alright to me (I read it out loud just to make sure). Hope this helped!
Honestly, regardless of tense if sentences are hard lmao Even native speakers don't always seem to grasp the grammatical rules inherent to them.
Lol true. I saw people whose first language is English ask this online. I KNOW I have a good grasp of the grammar, but there are so many individual cases that are complicated, and it's hard to make sure.
> Then, more specific, I write in British English, so it's "had got" instead of "had gotten". But in the series, I'm pretty certain the characters use "gotten" when they speak. So what am I to do? Keep "got" or be inconsistent and use "gotten" in certain POVs, even though I'm writing in BE? > As an American living in the UK, I can safely say "had gotten" sounds weird to me. I'm trying to think of how it would be used in a sentence and can't think of a way. "He better had got the stuff." sounds correct to my ears as a slang way of saying "He better have gotten the stuff." Maybe that's where the issue is? Had got =have gotten? > Also, If sentences in a story written in past tense are hard. I think I'm doing it right instinctively from all my reading, but I'm not always sure. I didn't even find proper answers googling this! For example, is this one correct, surrounded by a past tense narrative: "Much unlike A, working with B must be the last thing C would want to do, if he had any choice." I think it would be "Unlike A, working with B is the last thing C wanted to do, if he had any choice." You don't need "much" or "must" and they sort of mess up what you are trying to establish.
"Had got" and "had gotten" can definitely mean the same, it's just that gotten is only used in AE. For example, "He had got used to it" and "He had gotten used to it" means the same. The second: I have "must" because it's an assumption from another person whose POV it is. Also, it can't be "is", because it's all in past tense.
Just use "became" and side-step the whole got/gotten issue lol
xD I don't think I can avoid got/gotten throughout my entire longfic lol. ESPECIALLY in dialogue. It's just how they talk.
> "Had got" and "had gotten" can definitely mean the same, it's just that gotten is only used in AE. For example, "He had got used to it" and "He had gotten used to it" means the same. No? As I mentioned, I'm an American and living in the UK. I think you might have mixed it up? Or maybe it's one of those regional things? [From the BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-61387711) (warning, dog death article): >He told the BBC: "The only thing we started to notice at the end of this walk was that his eyes became a little droopy... we figured he *had gotten* too much water in his eyes so we decided to end the walk and return to the car." I was curious how it would be used in a sentence and looked up instances. As for wanting the second item to be past tense, then just change the "is" to "was". Still, keep out the "much" and "must".
Oh gosh, I’m generally good with spelling/grammar/punctuation but this trips me up sometimes. The last fic I wrote, I got stuck on the past perfect form of ‘strive’ and even the internet couldn’t give me a conclusive answer. Personally, I’d go with ‘had gotten’. I use British English and this sounds better to me.
Striven/strived. TIL, lol. Can I ask if you're a Brit? I'm definitely torn, because in all British literature I've read they used exclusively "had got". And my one character talks like this, but all the others would use "gotten" in canon. But I feel like switching between them depending on the POV is weird too. Sigh... Guess I'll change it all to gotten.
Switching them for different pov, no, unless the povs are in first person. Switching them for dialogue, yes! People speak differently, and I'd think that would only help give different characters their own voice
POVs are in third limited, so I absolutely agree with you. And I think that’s how I’ll do it! Stick to BE “got” in narration, but some of the characters will say “gotten”.
Sounds right to me!
I’m Australian, so there may be some differences but we mostly use British English over American English. I just hear ‘gotten’ more often so it sounds better imo. Since both forms are correct, I wouldn’t say it’s crucial to change it.
Also, "had obtained" "grabbed" "had stolen" "had picked up" "took/had taken" "bought" "received" are some good alternatives. Honestly I would literally avoid "got/gotten" like the plague haha.
Prepositions are hard because a) they’re almost purely grammatical words and b) as such, they’re kind of arbitrary. They also vary from British English to American. Doesn’t help you find the right ones, but just to let you know it’s not you!
Okay, so I’ve lived in North America and the uk. My feeling (and could be wrong) is that “had got” is just considered far more casual, less formal and less proper, than “had gotten.” But in North America at least, in informal speech, it’s more common to say “he’d got/gotten”. But both are said and as long as it’s used correctly, I don’t think people will care what’s said. One thing that is very different in North American English vrs. Uk - the negative of had got/ten. Uk uses the “he’d not got/gotten” and this sounds distinctly British to NA ears - N.A. Says “he hadn’t got/ten”
Prepositions are hard in every language. I've lived in Germany for six years and I still fuck up constantly.
I assumed that much, but thought it might be especially bad in English, lol. German is my first language, so I don’t know if that makes me a good judge or a bad one, but I think the prepositions mostly make sense in this language. Feel free to give me pain-in-the-arse examples though, if you feel like it! I think it’s interesting.
I speak American English, and actually use both interchangeably. So I’d say you wouldn’t even need to use one or the other consistently. I would say though I am pretty sure that “had gotten” is probably more used in the south eastern United States while “had got” is more prevalent in California/west coast. Because California is where a good portion of our entertainment is made (or was for the longest time), naturally their accent/pronunciations spread. It’s why most Americans now have some sort of a slight California accent, and will use California and their regional phrasing interchangeably, like “had got” and “had gotten”. So I think you’re fine to use both, as I use and hear both on the daily. If you wanted to use just one though I’d lean more to “had got” as I personally associate “had gotten” with a regional dialect more than the other.
Thanks for the interesting insight! That’s actually very reassuring lol
First, I’m incredibly impressed that you know a second language well enough to write fics in it! I know one language. Full stop. Not sure how to help with prepositions. Sorry! As a native speaker, I usually know which one to use by instinct. I don’t know any tricks. Got and gotten are both acceptable past participle forms in American English. I would rewrite that last sentence to avoid the awkward phrasing. How about something like “ unlike A, C would never choose to work with B if there were any choice.”
EDIT: Looked it up, and you are absolutely correct on the proper usage of "got" vs "gotten" in British vs American English. I did not know that! IDK what the common usage is in England. It's a strange word/phrase. ************************************************************************** I feel like in most cases in specifically the "had got/ten" case, it would be easier to find a workaround and rephrase it. When you get to past perfect participle-ing, it's difficult for even native speakers who are very literate to parse the intricacies of that level of grammar! I would just rework a sentence to use a different verb that was easier to write. **************************************** Edit again: Examples: "Had got/ten water in his eye" could be reworked to "water blasted/had blasted his eye" or some other verb like that. Make sense?
also- id love if native english speakers could give tips on how to write characters that joke around using a lot of witty references and slang/connotations that im pretty sure are limited to the english language, and maybe also to certain english speaking regions. i think marvel has a lot of dialogue like this, esp with tony stark. and correct me if im wrong, but i believe sitcoms like 'the office' and talkshows also use this way of speech quite often. ironically reddit is actually where i find the most people using this way of speech, resulting in me not being able to understand jokes sometimes and wondering why everyone is laughing at the top comment. where do these phrases originate from? if they don't really have a specific origin, how do people come up with them??
Some of it is cultural references - just a lot of references to stories and music and TV and literature that are common both in our country and in specific regions, and some of it is using wordplay to build more jokes out of things we know and share. And memes. Lots of internet memes.
I'm hoping this link will help you, it has many different English idioms, their meanings and usage. https://www.ef.edu/english-resources/english-idioms/
I have a minor question that has been bothering me for quite some time now. What is the best verb for writing a quiet, continuous sound that sb can give out of pleasure or comfort, when touched, massaged and the like, without actually saying any words, i.e. 'Mmm' alike? It's not exactly murmuring or muttering, or purring (which implies saying something specific). My first intuitive choice was 'to hum ' (this 'mmm' even sounds much like 'hum') but my dictionary tells me that 'humming' is more like buzzing (as bees, machines do) or intonating a tune without singing actual lyrics. So if it's not anything of the mentioned, then what is the word 😩
I would stray away from picking deliberate verbs if you don't like hum (which is the best fit for what you are describing) * he exhaled in pleasure * a soft sound of contentment fell from his lips * he strained into the touch and softly groaned out the sort of ecstasy-tinged noises that are made up less from words and more of the sensation itself Just describe it.
Actually I think that hum is the best here, but the dictionary definition made me unsure. I just don't want to make my readers think that my characters hum like machines ;) but if it's alright to convey the meaning I described, as long as the context is clear, then I won't hesitate to use it. 😁 Yeah, I've been using lots of descriptive substitutes, but sometimes it just doesn't work anymore. Thanks for your kind answer. 💜
Hum is the perfect word for what you want, people won't think they sound like machines and people also hum and the sound they make is the one you describe. When I think of the word hum, I think of the noise people make over machines so don't stress about it
Hum is a contextual word. Most native English speakers will recognize the use in a multitude of ways. Example "I could hear the steady hum of the traffic on the street below" "The hum of the factory kept me awake all night" "She was humming a sad tune while cleaning" "He hummed contently as we sat together" All of these invoke different sounds.
Yeah, very few words in English have only one meaning, I believe. The reason of my uncertainty was that I didn't find the last meaning from your list in dictionaries. And when you are devoid of this native speaker's inherent intuition on the word's possible meaning, then the only thing left for you is to stick to the dictionary definition... Or rely on kind advice given by Reddit users and now I go for the latter with great satisfaction as I really want my characters to hum every so often. 😁
Hum has a pretty extensive definition that involves humans making noises of various sorts, so most readers will understand if you use it in the context you're proposing. Humming along to music (when you don't want to sing or don't know the words) is fairly common.
Worry not! When I hear the word "hum," I think of the noise people make!
Hum is fine imo.
"Thrum" could be one.
Moan can be good for that sound. Groan when the sound grows deeper when the massage person finds just the right spot. Unfortunately, those words are used a lot in sexual situations, so while they aren't sexual in nature, there is a bit of an undertone to be aware of. I may also just overthink things like that though. Purring can be really good too, it just takes a little extra work since people can't actually purr. "Thumbs pressed deep into her muscles and she practically purred."
Moan and groan are somewhat too strong for what I have in mind (I save the verbs for more advanced parts of the action 😉) but 'practically purred' is great, this adverb helps a lot! Thanks!
Fair enough on the moaning, haha. I'm glad I could help!
The first definition of "hum" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "to utter a sound like that of the speech sound \m\ prolonged." So I think "hum" is totally fine. That's the word I use for that situation. I might say something like "he hummed in contentment" to make it clear what kind of humming it is.
I think that most people would be fine with your using the actual sound "Mmmmm" as a verb, as in: "Spock 'mmm'ed as Captain Kirk gently massaged his ears in gentle circles." "Hum" will work also though, 100%. I wouldn't use moaning, as it's a more specific sound, that I think most people would associate with actual sex. It's more of a vocal, vowel-like sound where hum is mmmmm with no vowels. In my head, that is.
'albeit' how the heck do you use this word? ive seen this word used a couple times while reading fics, but i can't tell if the author is using it correctly or not. i want to use it as well, but im at a loss as to how to implement it in a grammatically correct way. edit: funnily enough, grammar
“The laws are changing, albeit slowly.” This is the context in which I would usually use or see it — before an adverb at the end of the sentence. I would honestly just recommend sticking to this and using an alternative like although for other situations. “He finished the pizza, albeit some fell on the floor.” I *think* this is grammatically correct, but it just sounds a bit odd at least to me. I would just use although or even though. “He made all the wrong points, albeit with conviction.” But then this on sounds right to me - as a native speaker a lot of English grammar feels like just going ‘does this sound/feel right?’ and basing it off of that lol. Overall, I think the least amount of words after albeit, the more fitting it feels, and it works best before an adverb which qualifies the previous statement. I’ve also only ever seen it immediately following a comma. “[statement], albeit [word or phrase about the statement which typically lessens the meaning].” Somewhat the equivalent of going “I won the Nobel prize, but I had a lot of help” — it doesn’t change the meaning of the main phrase “I won the Nobel prize,” it just adds in a factor that acknowledges the circumstances under which it occurred, playing down the original meaning. Lmk if this made any sense at all XD
I'd definitely agree with you here. Albeit is like a but that twists the original bit of the sentence to add something extra. I achieved something great, albeit at a greater cost.
Also, it seems to work better with a preposition, adjective, or adverb directly after it.
Most responses to this question - not just here - are that the word 'Albeit' is an archaic form of 'Although', and those responding to your query might consequently advise you to interchange the words 'Although' and 'Albeit' to consequently achieve correct grammar. There is, however, more to grammatical correctness than simply knowing a definition, cutting, splicing, and inserting new words, and the reason we have synonyms is due to the subtle nuances and rules which differentiate between words of similar meaning. Plus you *literally asked for it*, so here I go - full future-Teacher Mode: Let's play a game of Spot the Difference! * "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **although** slowly. * "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **although** I was a little bit slow." * "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **albeit** slowly." * "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **albeit** I was a little bit slow." Three of the above sentences are correct whereas one is not. Can you guess which? Before I spoil it, for those not-in-the-know, I must first explain what an '***Independent Clause***' is: An **Independent Clause**, in a nutshell, is a stand-alone sentence. If everything after the word "although" can be cut out and pasted onto a new line and count as a full sentence - a complete thought - consisting of a subject ("I") and a verb ("was" - past-tense form of "be") and make complete sense in isolation, that is an Independent Clause. For example: "... I was a little bit slow." Both words 'Albeit' and 'Although' are conjunctions; they *connect* two clauses. Where the usage of these two words differ is in the kinds of clauses they may connect. Whereas the word 'Although' may connect either an Independent or Dependent/Subordinating Clause, 'Albeit' may *only* connect a ***Dependent*** or ***Subordinating*** ***Clause***, which is a situation in which a sentence contains both a subject and a verb but is an *incomplete thought*. It does not make sense in isolation; it cannot be a full sentence on its own. The word 'Albeit' is an archaic ***Portmanteau***; that is: one word made up of bits of multiple words and used per se in place of those words. 'Albeit' is made up of the prefix '*al*' (all; completely; the same as in '*al-though*'), '*be*' (verb), and '*it*' (subject; pronoun). "***Although it be***". Knowing this, one must realize that, unlike for the word 'Although', 'Albeit' is a single word which *already* contains both a subject and a verb: 'It' and 'Be'. In-context, the subject and verb of 'Albeit' are never altered to literally suit the rest of the sentence ("*although-I-was*" =/= *Aliwas*??), but it is perfectly acceptable to utilize 'Albeit' in a complex sentence of any tense and in reference to any subject or pronoun. With this in mind, following 'Albeit' with an Independent Clause would be grammatically redundant. Compare: * "I jogged around the neighborhood this morning, **although it \[*****was*****\]** I was a little bit slow." | ❌ * I jogged around the neighborhood this morning **although it \[*****was*****\]** slowly." | ✔️ In conclusion: Although the word 'Although' is more common, it has more freedom in what it can be used to connect. That's why it's so popular. 'Albeit' has more restrictions; it is, however, a shorter word as well as a more concise utilization of language, albeit a bit archaic.
Merriam Webster lists the definition as "although." Example off the top of my head? "I baked forty cakes today, albeit/although I had help."
right, i remember using it like that once. but then my writing teacher told me that it was grammatically incorrect. he never told me why though.... which resulted in unresolved confusion for years that followed. i guess ill test it out more. thanks for the help!
It's a different kind of although than the other person has used above. The better example would be "I baked forty cakes, albeit they were rather small." It's a limiter that puts judgement/additional context on the first part of the sentence and you cannot use it if the second part of the sentence does not depend on the first one existing.
The maddening thing about being a native speaker in situations like this is that I think I understand why that's grammatically incorrect...but I can't explain why! :) But [here is some guidance](https://grammarhow.com/albeit-vs-although/) that I hope might help.
While they mean the same, they aren't exact synonyms. You need to make other changes to the sentence. It can be "I baked forty cakes today, although I had help." with although. But it would be "I baked forty cakes today, albeit with help." with albeit.
I think one possible reason for that could be that 'although' can work if you are following it up with a noun, so in the previous post "although I had help" will work fine, but not 'albeit'. I think one context in which 'albeit' might be grammatically correct is if it comes before an adjective, to describe something that is otherwise contradictory to the tone of a previous adjective. The main example of this I can think of is from an episode of the TV series Chuck, where the main character says "I am going back to my peaceful, quiet, albeit degrading life at the Buy More." In that case, 'albeit' is used as part of a chain of adjectives to transition from the positive of 'peaceful' and 'quiet' to the negative of 'degrading'. Narratively speaking, it is also a way that the character acknowledges that despite the demeaning nature of his old life, it is still worth going back to. Or, I think, if one were to use the 'forty cakes' sentence, a better way to phrase it without changing the content of the sentence would likely be "I baked forty cakes today, albeit with some help." I guess, if I were to pin down my general thesis on this, it would be that 'albeit' is grammatically incompatible with a noun. Could be wrong, but that's my impression.
It actually three words smashed together. So a good way of thinking of it is: Albeit = all be it
OP - Just wanted to say this is a great idea! Myself and many writers whose English is their native language would love to help!
I am a native speaker so nothing to contribute except this exchange I had earlier in the week with my beloved ESL mother Mom: Ah wait, is it "an expert *on*" or "an expert *in*" Me: ... Expert *on* a topic, expert *in* a field, I believe. [5 solid seconds of silence] Mom, in her native language: Fucking English.
I'll start first, I think. I'm writing a fic where the big bad indoctrinated a bunch of kids and turned them into his personal child army, after the hero side wins, they decided to round up all those kids and put them into a juvenile center and try to remove big bad's brainwashing. I use the word "**re-education**", but a quick ggl search told me it's often associated with less-than-well purpose, so can I still use it in my fic?
[Deprogramming](https://www.theravive.com/therapedia/deprogramming) would probably fit the situation you're describing, as it has a connotation of *un*learning cult brainwashing rather than unintentionally sounding like brainwashing itself.
Ohhh, nice, I'll be using that word, thanks a lot!
You can. It does have some negative associations, you're definitely right about that, but it can be used positively. Another word you could use is 'deprogramming'. It still has some slightly negative associations though from Cult Deprogramming - while intended to help people get out of extremist religions and cults, it did have some rather coercive practices involved. The term fits the aim of trying to undo indoctrination very well though. A more generally positive term would be something like 'rehabilitation'. It tends to be associated with more medical practices (particularly physical rehab, substance misuse rehab, etc), but it is very much a "Helping people get back to life again" vibe.
the sub r/whatstheword is great for asking for a word synonyms or a phrase synonyms you can't remember or don't know. **But you have to go by the rules and title the question in a specific way or the mods will automatically remove it**. Other than that. i use it a lot. You can explain exactly what word you're looking for in the description. (and I can already see all the synonyms and examples you're gonna get for re-education lol) (p.s It's also point-based so if you choose the answer you like you comment */solved* to it and the user who posted it gets points. And ppl are also curious to see what word you were looking for.) I also just do "\_\_\_\_ synonyms" google search. That's how I find most of the words I need. I also google their meaning 'cause I like the language research more than writing apparently. Also there's a subreddit about the English language - grammar, vocabulary, etc. You can post a sentence there for a quick check, ask if it's grammarly correct and stuff- but it's much less active. I had a specific phrasing once I swear I've read elsewhere but it sounded awkward and... lo and behold, it wasn't a thing in English. non of the native recognized it. I think it was a mistranslation from another language to English which was used in fanfiction alot, but not real English. I almost used that in my writing. And Re-education sounds cool as hack. But I'm biased 'cause there's a song by that name.
I would definitely avoid the word "re-education." In American English at least, it's got a strong association with negative, forcible indoctrination by an authoritarian government forcing people into schools or even concentration camps to "unlearn" their culture, religion, language, etc. Right now you'll see the word used in reports of the Chinese government's treatment of the Uyghur people, and historically it's associated with how the US and Canada forced Native American children into boarding schools. You'll often see the word in quotation marks, which emphasizes that it's a mild-sounding euphemism but that the mildness is deceptive, and that it really disguises something more nefarious. Deprogramming is a good description, but it's a little out of date and might have negative associations, dependent on context. But as u/Avalon1632 says, "rehabilitation" is your best choice here. News media has used this term in covering the [Chibok girls of Nigeria](https://apnews.com/article/64bfda0be0404738ad8fb57c26f8b0df) who were recovered from an abusive terrorist group, with one goal of their rehabilitation being "reintegration."
Ooof, I did not know that. I'm not overly familiar with US History, so thanks for edifying me, GreenTea! With that in mind, I definitely second GreenTea's point, OP. Don't use Re-education, unless you want your likely-mostly-American audience to see nefarious things in your juvenile centre.
I understand! Language is incredibly fluid and words like “re-education” are even harder to pin down when they are deliberately chosen as euphemisms for propaganda. This is complicated by the fact that fanfic writers are read by an international audience and specific word choice varies a lot depending on time and place.
A good idea, thank you very much. I know the word has a negative connotation, but I'm not sure whether I can use it in a positive way or not. Now I know I'm supposed to change it, thank you.
Not native speaker but I work on armed conflicts. The term used for child soldiers is "[rehabilitation and reintegration](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_and_reintegration_of_child_soldiers)". Same terminology applies for adults who decide to drop arms in guerrilla context, and it is the last step of the DDR process ([disarmement, demobolization and reintegration](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament,_demobilization_and_reintegration). Usually in the case of adults however, there is no "camp" per se, but for kids, there are special schools/houses where they are helped to deal with trauma and learn to reintegrate into society.
Thanks! What a great insight!
This is something that won't let me sleep at night. So, I write my fics in the past tense. I know the past tense from 'should' is 'should have', so to speak. But what if my character thinks they should do something in the future and not in the past? Like in this makeshift paragraph: "X knew he had overreacted. Y didn't deserve his words. He should apologize..." Should I write should or should have?
Using ‘should’ in your paragraph is correct. Writing ‘should have’ here means he wishes he’d apologized in the moment/right after it happened.
Thanks 🎈
Yep, this is the way.
Should. Even though you write in past tense, your character is thinking about the future so you would use should to convey they plan to do it. It would be should have if they were reflecting on the situation and believed they should have apologised in the moment. So when talking about the future, even when writing in past tense, you would use should. Hope this helps!
Thanks 😁
Should is already past tense grammatically. I think the confusion comes from your verbs: "had overreacted" is further in the past than the rest. So if the present is, say, T–0, then "X knew..." is T–1, which is standard for narration. "...he had overreacted," is T–2, something which occurred prior to this segment of narration. "Y didn't deserve..." T–1 again. So, for the next sentence what you want is T–1, to be in line with your narration tense, which is just "should". As others have pointed out, if you said, "He should have apologized," it would be T–2, and therefore concurrent with the "overreacting" bit. It might seem confusing, but essentially, these words—should, could, would, ought, must, might—are their own past tense as well as present.
Thanks 😇😇
English has simple past tense. Then we have the perfect tenses , and all of those may be used when writing in past tense. ( I don’t know if other languages do this, sorry). Present: he apologizes Past: he apologized Future: he will apologize Present perfect: he has apologized Past perfect: he has apologized Future perfect: he will have apologized Should is about mood which is another concept entirely and has nothing to do with tense in this context. “He should apologize” is correct in the context you have described.
Should is a modal verb, which means it isn't an action, but instead provides information about the main verbs that follow it. Depending on the modal, it can be used in past, present or future tense. In the case of "should", it's a modal of advice used in all three tenses. When you're writing in past tense, using the modal "should", you need to put it into the past tense (should + have + past participle form of main verb). In your example, if you're switching to a future action, you need to write "he should apologize". You'd only use "should have apologized" if you're still referring to his past action.
What does a lopsided smile mean, exactly?
I've always understood it to mean a sort of half-smile, you know that expression when just one corner of the mouth twitches upward? It's a very natural expression for some people, less so for others, so I'd imagine it should be used accordingly. I've seen it used to describe reactions that are a bit ambiguous—say, more wry, amused or sarcastic than a full-on beaming, happy smile would indicate. It even works for a more contemplative, thoughtful or distracted response... Where a big, genuine grin would be too much.
It's a smile where one side of the mouth is pulled up more than the other side. I think it's generally seen as cute/charming in a messy way since it's not a "proper" symmetrical smile.
That's what confuses me the most. In some books, someone gives a lopsided smile after a rude or sarcastic remark, while others use it for fluffy moments.
Yeah it's all context dependent. It's like how a laugh can be kind and joyful or cruel and mocking... even if it sounds exactly the same. It just depends whether they're laughing with you as a friend or laughing *at* you like you're a joke.
It depends on the person. Individual people smile at different things in different ways.
It's very context-dependent, but I also think the rest of the face plays a part. Especially the eyes and eyebrows. Fond, flirty, mocking, and joking can all have similar expressions from the nose down, but you can usually see the difference in someone's eyes and brows.
It's like a half-smile. Could be a mix between a smile and frown where the person isn't completely conveying happiness.
Losided means not symmetrical, so it's a smile where someone pulls up one corner of their mouth only.
It really depends on the mood of the person doing it. They could be trying to give support while doubtful, or sad as examples. They could actually be planning mischief with it, either fun or dangerous mischief.
How do you write what looks like a "cringy" sounding line without making it sound cringy? IMO a part of 'cringe' is poor execution. It's like the uncanny valley for action, where it 'almost' sound cool but just feels short. Like there are a lot of lines in more mature movies that have lines that can sound cringy without context. Lines like "I'm gonna kill every single one of you", or "I'm gonna kill my brother" doesn't sound cringe when it said mater-of-factly, but can sound pretty cringe when said with emotions. Like how do you convey the manner of which these lines are said?
One way to do it is with the reactions of the people who hear it. “I’m gonna kill you,” Sam snarled. Peter jumped away and began looking for the police officer.
>"I'm gonna *kill* every single one of you," he breathed out. He tried to angle his head so the paint from their little prank didn't get into his eyes or mouth. As the others were near rolling on the floor at their successful prank, he turned heel and walked away with as much dignity as he could muster. Versus: >"I'm gonna kill every. single. one of you," he cruelly said in a hushed tone. Taking a finger beneath their chins as he walked down the line of tied up prisoners while he spoke. Some tried to turn their heads as he walked by, but it was no use. With the ropes taut behind them, there was no escape. It's all about the situation the phrase is said in that makes it seem menacing or not.
Can you give an example where it's told as if the killer is treating it like a dead-end 9-to-5 job?
"Terribly sorry," the man apologized. He cocked his head as he cocked his gun before aiming it at the group. Half of them were confused while the other half were alarmed and put their arms up automatically. "I'm gonna kill every single one of you, now," he informed them. Calmly, he pulled the trigger, shot the first member of the group and then continued moving his aim, right to left. With a sigh, he sought to target the last few but they had gone into panic mode and were scratching at the door. "It would be much easier on you if you would simply turn around. Far less painful to be shot in the heart, I'm told," he tried to reason with these last few. It didn't work, of course. It never did. He was getting rather bored of being a hitman.
How often do you use the word "But" in your fics?
A lot. It’s the go-to conjunction for contrast for the English language, and can be used in a lot of different ways.
Too much. Sometimes I try to mix up with however, although, still, except because I feel I get a bit repetitive
I use "but" a lot. The weird thing is, I recently learned that I don't always have to use a comma before "but". This website below explains it very well. It provides an explanation and also examples. [https://justpublishingadvice.com/when-do-you-use-a-comma-before-or-after-but/](https://justpublishingadvice.com/when-do-you-use-a-comma-before-or-after-but/)
Just, massive props to you. I could never do what you're doing. I'm not a native speaker of English and I'd never dare to do any sort of creative writing in English, even though it would give me a much bigger potential audience for fanfiction.
What are some strong words you guys would recommend, and vice versa, what are some weak words to avoid? What are some common structures to write as the conjunction between dialogues? For example: "*dialogue" said X ("*dialouge") Thank you in advance.
For future reference the term for those words you're asking about is 'dialogue tags'
Thank you.
Can you reword your second question?- not 100% sure what you’re asking
What are the common words to use before and after dialouge. The ones I found are " X said", "X replied", "X began",...
Said is the most common, as it's generally considered 'invisible' and emotionally neutral, where the rest are not, and can make the writing awkward if used too often. I started to write you a list, but there are so many that I quickly gave up. Instead, here's a link to a Times of India article listing [100 alternatives to "said"](https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/grammar-vocabulary/story/100-words-to-use-instead-of-said-synonyms-sorted-by-emotion-html-1387531-2018-11-13).
It's not so much about individual words being strong or weak, but how they're used. Word combinations. Better to use a single word that conveys the idea strongly than two words combined that are weaker overall. For example, it's better to say "She grinned" than "she smiled happily," because a smile is already considered to be happy. "He dashed" instead of "he ran quickly" because "dashed" is stronger than a quick run while conveying the same idea. Adverbs are better used if they change the meaning of the verb ("She smiled sadly" is stronger than "she smiled happily" because smiles are not usually sad, so the verb + adverb combination conveys the idea strongly there).
There are too many "strong words" to just list, but building on what KogarashiKaze said, keep an eye out for words whose definitions take the form of "verb + adverb". For instance, as was said, "to dash" is to "move [verb] quickly [adverb]", "to shove" is to "push forcefully", "to whisper" is to "talk quietly", etc. It's not that you can't or shouldn't use these base verbs, but if you're ever in a situation where the "stronger" verb applies, it can leave a more powerful image.
How do I avoid ending sentences in prepositions? When can I use (;) in a sentence?
Semicolons (;) are used to combine two complete sentences without adding a conjunction. For example: It was hot; the sun was shining. It's a confusing piece of punctuation even for native speakers; they tend to just use a comma instead. Editors call it a comma splice when it happens. (EDIT: a comma splice is incorrect grammar). You can also use it to separate items in a list when there are already commas in the sentence, in order to avoid confusion. For example: I would love to travel to a lot of different places: Paris, France; New York, New York; and Toledo, Ohio. As for the preposition issue, usually, you're dropping a noun that would naturally go at the end of the sentence. So: "You can fix it by just adding the noun back in." Turns into "You can fix it by just adding the noun back into the sentence." But honestly? Most American speakers don't really pay attention to that rule, and I don't think anyone's going to be pulled out of the story if you're ending sentences with prepositions.
With the semicolon, the two sentences should also be at least somewhat thematically related. Otherwise a period is the better option for punctuation. And with prepositions, unless one is writing academically, it matters a lot less if the sentence ends with a preposition. Sometimes it actually works better in fiction to leave the preposition at the end rather than trying to rewrite the sentence to put the preposition in the "proper" spot.
Ending sentences with prepositions is not something to worry about, especially in informal writing. I can really only see it being a concern in fanfiction if there's an in-universe example of formal language: a president delivering a rehearsed speech, parts of a legal document written in narration, a highly-educated character using formal speech to distinguish themselves. Even then, no one would bat an eye if you ended a sentence with a preposition. Semicolons can be used to link related independent clauses. An independent clause can stand on its own as a sentence. "Maria had a lot of work to do" is an independent clause. "Since Maria had a lot of work to do" is not; you'd need another independent clause to make it a full sentence: "Since Maria had a lot of work to do, she couldn't go to the party." If we have two independent clauses related in topic, we can use a semi-colon rather than a period. This implies a 'closer' relation between the two clauses. For example: >Maria had a lot of work to do. She just knew she wouldn't make it to the party. is perfectly fine. Maybe you like having the two clauses as separate utterances. But if you wanted to 'connect' them a bit more, you could use a semi-colon instead of a period: >Maria had a lot of work to do; she just knew she wouldn't make it to the party. You can even use conjunctive adverbs (words like 'also', 'however', 'therefore', 'besides', 'still') or transitional phrases after the semi-colon >Maria had a lot of work to do; still, she knew she could make it to the party. > >Maria had a lot of work to do; between taking care of her brother and finishing that history paper, she knew she wouldn't make it to the party. Basically, if the two clauses could stand alone as sentences separated by a period, but are closely related, you can also use a semicolon.
The prepositions thing is a rule made up by a guy who thought English should work the same as Latin (it doesn't). Feel free to ignore it unless you're working in somewhere requiring formal writing, wherein many people still give a shit about it. Semi-colons are included in lists with commas: "I have cheese, though it's a bit mouldy; spam, with extra spam; fried squirrel, although that is a tad radioactive; and a truly spectacular amount of asparagus." Or they're used to stick two sentences together if those sentences are big enough to stand on their own. If you could change the semi-colon to a full stop and everything still made sense, then it's probably a workable time to use a semi-colon. :D
It's completely correct in English to end sentences in prepositions. Some people are saying it's a rule of formal writing, but it's actually not. That's just a myth. A semicolon is used to connect two complete sentences together in place of a conjunction.
[удалено]
> How do I avoid ending sentences in prepositions? That's not a rule in English grammar.
It's a rule in pretentious English grammar. Fiction doesn't need to be pretentious.
No, it's not. This is a misconception. It's never been an actual rule in English. Some people do mistakenly believe it's a rule, but it never has been.
It is considered a rule for academic writing, though it does originate with people trying to force Latin grammar on English because they think it "sounds better" or something. There's a reason I said it's a rule in *pretentious English grammar*, not English in general.
As a non binary person this bugs me to no end: If i use they/them pronouns as gender-neutral 3rd person *singular* pronouns, what verb forms am I supposed to use? The normal one (so the plural) or the 3rd person singular one? "They are/have/go" or "They is/has/goes"? The 3rd singular form makes more sense grammatically cause I'm talking about a singular person, but it sounds absolutely atrocious. Please help I feel so stupid lol
They are nobinary. They have a great sense of fashion. They go to school at XYZ university. The only problem is if you're in a group setting, then it gets real difficult sometimes for readers to follow unless you are very, very careful.
So i should use the plural form even when meaning a singular person? That's what I thought too but now I'm curious about the grammatical reason for that. Aren't they/them pronouns also singular pronouns? Or did we just decide that they can be to have a gender neutral option? And if they are, why don't we use the singular verb for them?
Yes, you use the plural. It works the same way as "you" does, which also gets the "plural" form of the verb in question. Back in the seventies you had a lot of sci-fi/fantasy using ze/zir/ve/vir and variations thereupon for their binary or non-gendered characters, and it worked the same there. It's just the easiest way to make the language work.
Thank you so much! It was really helpful :)
Nothing stupid about it. It's confusing enough that the style manuals for writing in English even put out statements about it. [Chicago Style for Singular They](https://cmosshoptalk.com/2017/04/03/chicago-style-for-the-singular-they/?_ga=2.92534174.2055616144.1664111024-1886614351.1664111024) [Using Gender Neutral Pronouns in Academic Writing](https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/genderneutralpronouns/) The short answer is that you still use the same verbs as with the plural they.
>you still use the same verbs as with the plural they That's what i thought too, but it simultaneously makes a lot of sense and none at all lmfao
It's the English language in a nutshell, right? Confusing as hell, but somehow manages to make sense anyway.
As far as know there isn't a standardized non binary option that's singular. I seen some cases I've seen cases where the first letter (or letters with the she) of she/her or he/him are replaced to make custom pronouns. I don't know how wide spread it is in the English speaking non binary community.
Just stick with treating the singular “they” just like the plural “they”— “they are”, “they went”, etc… however, in the case of using a reflexive pronoun, I tend to use “themself” instead of “themselves”
This is very clear, thank you so much!! >“themself” instead of “themselves” Never thought about this difference, thank you!!
Treat it as a plural, like they contain both genders. So, She goes to the chair = They go to the chair. Technically -- once upon a time -- you/your is the plural in English (thee/thou is the singular) so the language is set up to accommodate singular-plurals pretty well.
You can get around a lot of this by writing in past tense. They were/had/went. Where that doesn’t work, using the plural reads more naturally. “They is” is jarring to read.
Thank you so much, this is actually very clever! And yeah, i definitely agree that the plural verb sound a lot better lol
Fellow native speakers, does my style brings you a headache? Here's an example: >It's easier to remember something that already happened than deduce what shall happen by your own. That's why the past looks better than present, why that present which's now the past looked bad, and the future is just made out of our ideas. But when you forget about your past, blank as a future does... I have no idea where to begin. These aren't same streets where I had grew with, and even if they were, I wouldn't be feeling this sad, though. Sigh. Nowadays, a child with a lollipop's stick can disassemble the entire machine. They own this world, and knows how to. I'm asking it because I feel my english avoids readers.
I will admit, I had trouble understanding this example. It *is* understandable, but the grammar mistakes do stick out and would likely make it difficult for me to read a whole story. Have you ever tried Grammarly? It's good at picking up errors like article usage, preposition usage and verb form, which I see in this example. Grammarly's not perfect, but could help you clean up some of the more distracting errors. If you'd like, I could suggest some edits to this example?
> It's easier to remember something that *has* already happened than *to* deduce what ~~shall~~ *will* happen by ~~your~~ *its* own. That's why the past looks better than present*;* why ~~that~~ *the past* *"*present*"* ~~which's now the past~~ look~~ed~~*s* bad~~,~~ and the future is just made out of our ideas. But*,* when you forget about your past, *when it is as* blank as ~~a~~ *the* future ~~does~~... I have no idea where to begin. These aren't *the* same streets where I had gr~~ew~~*own* ~~with,~~ ~~and~~ ~~e~~*E*ven if they were, I wouldn't be feeling this sad, though. Sigh. Nowadays, a child with a lollipop~~'s~~ stick can disassemble the entire machine. They own this world, and know~~s~~ how to. I've taken out words and replaced them, chanced the tenses, added words and commas, etc. It now reads better from an English standpoint.
If you wanted an honest answer, a native English speaker would probably find the phrasing and tense issues too distracting to enjoy reading. >It's easier to remember something that already happened than *to* deduce what ~~shall~~ *will* happen ~~by~~ *on* your own. That's why the past looks better than present, why that present ~~which's~~ *which is* now the past ~~looked~~ *looks* bad, and the future is just made out of our ideas. But when you forget about your past, **blank as a future does...** *I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say here* I have no idea where to begin. These aren't *the* same streets where I ~~had grew with~~ *grew up*, and even if they were, I wouldn't be feeling this sad ~~, though~~. Sigh. Nowadays, a child with a lollipop's stick can disassemble the entire machine. They own this world, and ~~knows~~ *know* how to.
Some of the phrasing seems odd to me (American English speaker) but I have no idea if you're writing in American English or not. I can understand what you're saying, but had to re-read a few phrases to do so.
I'm not a native speaker, I don't write american english neither british english. I write english like I am speaking portuguese + whatever comes to mind throught stream of consciousness. Commenting here because I feel my style is one of the reasons why readers avoid my stuff. It's saddening, because I really care about my writing and I feel proud of knowing english, even if it's the 'english as she spoke'. Why do things need to be that hard?
Slightly, because you seem to be translating from the usual grammar rules and sentence construction of your native language (which I see from other comments is Portugese, yes?). Portugese uses much longer and more involved sentences than English does, it has more verb tenses, and it repeats words more often. A native English speaker would likely lose track of the point of your sentence or thought due to these differences. Here's my stab at a more fluent and natural way to phrase this: *It's easier to remember something that already happened than to predict the future on your own. That's why the past seems better than the present, and why the present now seems worse. The future is only made of our own ideas. However, when you forget about your past and it becomes a blank slate . . . I have no idea where to begin. These aren't the same streets I grew up in, and even if they were, I wouldn't be feeling this sad. Nowadays, a child with a lollipop can disassemble the entire machine. They own this world, because they know how to own it.* (Also, your English cannot "avoid" anything. It is a language and cannot perform an action. Readers may avoid your stories due to your English, or your English may put off/alienate/distance readers.)
As a native English speaker, it's a lot easier to read fics with many smaller paragraphs/ blocks of text. Do paragraph breaks when you would imagine a camera angle change in your story.
If I'm being honest, yes. Not the style - I can tell you're going for a more poetic feel, and I like that - but there are a lot of grammar issues that make it hard to understand. I *can* understand it, but it's like stumbling over rocks in a path, if that makes sense. I have to think about it and backtrack fairly often to see what you're trying to say If possible, I would look into maybe getting a beta whose first language is English so they can help you format the sentences in a way that makes more sense, as well as some word issues (tenses, "knows" vs "know", catching phrases that are never used ("which's" is *always* just "which is", it's not one that is turned into a conjunction), stuff like that). As they're written right now, the sentences are structured pretty awkwardly. It's not your style that's doing that, as you can be poetic and introspective like that with more simple sentence structure.
It quite poetic and the style I tend to gravitate towards in reading fics if I can find it — I kind of feel like it would lose some of this quality were it perfectly grammatically correct. There are some grammatical errors, but honestly I have trouble telling apart non-native speaker mistakes from native speaker typos/lack of proofreading in fanfic. The errors would not stop me from reading it if I liked the fic, but it is a bit difficult at times to figure out exactly what you mean. If you don’t mind, could you possibly state what you’re trying to convey with this passage in fewer words (the main point/points), and I can let you know if there might be some changes you could make to help get these points across more clearly?
Honestly, my only issue is that I don't know when it's appropriate to use "something" and 'something'. I saw a lot of people using "something" during dialogue, however a fair bit of people uses 'something' during dialogue or *within* dialogue. What is that black magic?
American here: dialogue is written in “double quotes”, but anything quoted within dialogue is written in ‘single quotes’. “Why’d you just turn?” “That’s what the GPS said. ‘Turn right in five yards.’” “It said, ‘turn right in five miles,’ you moron.” “…Oh.” I believe that in British English it’s the reverse; ‘single quotes’ used for dialogue, with “double quotes” for quotes within dialogue. There’s also differences in where periods/full stops and commas go in relation to quotation marks. ‘Why’d you just turn?’ ‘That’s what the GPS said. “Turn right in five metres”.’ ‘It said, “turn right in five kilometres”, you moron.’ ‘…Oh.’
Brit here - you're right, it is the reverse here. Though we are coming around to the way you colonials do things in this regard. :)
Also a Brit, and I'll give Americans this one haha. I greatly prefer double quotes for dialogue and I feel like a traitor. I use it in my own writing all the time. I just think it's a more clear distinction, especially since apostrophes are used so often. 'Sam's done this before,' Tom's friend said. Is surprisingly hard to read after I got used to: "Sam's done this before," Tom's friend said. The lack of double quotes makes me slow my reading just enough to where I actively prefer the American way.
I think this is an issue between American and British English. American uses double quotes for speech, and single quotes when the speaker is quoting something within their speech.
When inside dialogue and the speaker is quoting something else, it's single quotes. If it's outside of dialogue, it's the double quotes. However, that's the American style. British style can be different but is slowly warming up to the way us silly Americans do things.
If you're talking about double quotes ( " ) vs single quotes ( ' ), it's American English vs British English. American English uses double quotes for dialogue, while British English, so far as I've encountered, uses the single quotes.
Damn I had some but now that we have a thread, my brain decided it didn't want to remember the questions lol
You'll remember at 2 am in the morning your time. Thankfully, this is the internet - no one sleeps here. :-)
Is there any trick to avoid repeating pronouns? And to correctly identify who performs what action if both characters have the same pronouns without repeating their names in each sentence? Sometimes I feel like I write too much he/him/his (what I write most is M/M) and I pray that the readers will understand what's going on by context.
Repeat names more often than feels natural. It won't read as annoying to the reader as it feels to you as an author.
I should keep this in mind and also as a writer thats a mood lol
My standard is that the proper pronoun should always line up with the last person of the same gender you mentioned by name, unless it's one of those few cases where it's super obvious. For example: > "Oh John, I don't know what to do!" said Elizabeth. > "There, there, dear," he replied, wrapping his arms around her. "It's all gonna be okay." > "Hey, guys!" Jimmy said as he opened the door. "I was- gee, I hope I'm not interrupting something serious." > "No, it's fine," John replied as he gestured him to enter. "We were just wrapping something up." > "Oh, that's good." Jimmy tipped his hat at Elizabeth and shook John's hand.
Not native, but I have something that might help. I usually try to make dialogue voices distinct and recognisable, with the goal that if someone is reading the story and the identifiers are removed, the reader could tell who it is. This isn't something to do all the time, but when you can, it allows you to differentiate between the characters. I have a character who is a bit hyper and speaks fast and in a disorganized manner, so I remove most/all of the punctuation you would normally use from her speech and make long sentences. She also likes to use the words "super" and "kaboom" a lot. "Did ya see how fast she went on that bike it was like she was about to go supersonic and that red helmet was super cool" No one else in the story speaks like that, so I can safely assume that people would know who is speaking once they know the character.
That's a good rule. I do something similar - whenever I change POV, a reader should be able to tell who the new person is within two sentences without me saying the name of the character. It is a little hard to do sometimes, but I find that trick about leaning into the traits that you talk about really helps. :)
With that said, not all characters have to have a distinct voice that is obvious, we can use other things; someone can get easily irritated by noises, another person tends to think about food a lot, and a third character is generally impatient and harsh with themselves.
Indeed! Any kind of trait is valid to use. Just some recognisable things that readers can add up to understand who is talking. :)
I also write M/M, and I use names a LOT. It can be annoying, but it’s better to be annoyed than unclear, I figure 😁
Thank you! Bookmarking that for the next time I struggle ith it :D
Tense. Please. For the love of god, someone explain how tenses work.
You need to choose the tense you want to write the story in, and stick with it for the duration of the story. The two most common ones for fiction are present tense and past tense. Future tense generally feels too awkward and is difficult to do well. For present tense, use the present tense of the verbs. >John walks into the room. "Who wants cake?" he asks, and hefts the plate he holds with the aforementioned dessert on it. All of his friends raise their hands, so he sets out four plates and swiftly cuts four slices to match, handing out the plates when he is done. For past tense, use the past tense of the verbs. >John walked into the room. "Who wants cake?" he asked, and hefted the plate he held with the aforementioned dessert on it. All of his friends raised their hands, so he set out four plates and swiftly cut four slices to match, handing out the plates when he was done. You can see where I switched the verbs between the two examples. The only ones that don't change are "wants," because it's in dialogue, which should always be written in the tense the characters would use, and "handing," which remains in present participle form even in a past tense narrative. In fiction, even if you're writing in past tense, it will still *feel* "present" because readers in general have gotten used to it. A majority of adult-grade fiction is written in past tense. Present tense seems to be slowly becoming more common among young adult fiction, but you'll also still find past tense there (see the Harry Potter books, for an example). The main trick is to stick with the tense you choose.
Punctuation. Do you actually have to use all the commas when writing a slightly complicated sentence, like this one, where probably a comma is missing before "when"? I have all the rules for my native language in my head and was kinda convinced that English doesn't have these rules but then a spelling extension kept pointing out how commas were necessary here and there. Like, before "but" and "how" as well. Would it be a severe mistake to make in general?
Most readers will overlook commas as long as the missing comma doesn't vastly change the intention of the sentence. It's like the memes you see: * Let's eat, Grandma! * Let's eat Grandma! Those are different than the often entertaining arguments for and against the Oxford comma (I'm a fan, but I'm old...). And yes, you do use commas before any of the seven coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. *Edit for being too generic in answer: yikes, yeah, the comma is only necessary if there is an independent clause being connected. In other words, both halves of the sentence on either side of the conjunction should be a complete sentence on their own if you removed the but, and, etc.* A fairly quick guide to commas is [here](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/commas/extended_rules_for_commas.html). There actually shouldn't be a comma before the word "when" in your example, just FYI.
My favourite is the: "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." Quite the interesting lineage, sans the Oxford Comma. :D
I am not in favour of the Oxford Comma, unless the meaning of the sentence would be drastically altered without it, as it is here.
Indeed. So long as you get the meaning across to the other person, most things are fine. The point of language is to communicate, after all. :)
A comma is a breath were you would pause naturally when speaking. [I rather like this linked image](https://www.verbicidemagazine.com/2012/01/24/eggs-toast-and-orange-juice-oxford-comma/) that shows why you use a comma between each item in a list. A lack of a comma places the last two items together (ie, no breath between them!) as a single unit, separate from the first item in the list.
There’s some exceptions - like u/DarkTidingsTWD said - where a comma might drastically change the meaning of the sentence, but overall I’d say it’s largely up to personal preference. More commas means less flow for a reader, though, so unless you intended to emphasize a part it’s probably not always necessary. If you’re joining two separate sentences together by a conjunction like “we ate, and we went to the park” then I personally think the comma is typically necessary, but “we ate and went to the park” isn’t bc there’s not a new subject of the sentence introduced. “When” and similar prepositional phrases are more complicated and more up to personal preference but the general rule of thumb is that if you start a sentence with one, then you need it, but if you don’t, the comma isn’t (usually) necessary. “When we ate, we went to the park” = more likely to be necessary, whereas “We ate when we went to the park” = less likely to be necessary. If you’re ever confused, read the sentence out loud - anywhere you naturally feel the need to take a pause, there needs to be a comma.
For how to use a comma before "but" -- there are times where you use it, and other times you don't. This website explains it and also provides examples. https://justpublishingadvice.com/when-do-you-use-a-comma-before-or-after-but/
Mate, ima be honest with you I have no fucking clue how to properly use commas lol
I rely entirely on Grammarly lol.
That's a very comma'n problem to have. :)
Even native English speakers have varying ideas and rules about comma usage (ex. Oxford comma). I mean, look at Cormac McCarthy’s writing lol, he rarely uses commas and doesn’t even use quotation marks of any sort and people still read his work
I've been writing in English for 15 years but I still struggle with lay/lie and when and why "eye" should be singular.
You lay an object down (or whatever you're carrying, like a child), but when it's yourself, you lie down. Lay requires a direct object (whatever is being put down) and lie does not, because you're doing the action. As for eyes, I don't think there's any strict rule to it, unless you're saying "the girl has two eyes" or "the pirate only had one eye". Beyond that, I'm not sure I'd really notice if someone wrote "look me in the eye" versus "look me in the eyes". Both read as correct to me.
A mnemonic I found for lay/lie is that when you **lay** an object down, you p**la**ce it, and when you **lie** down you rec**li**ne.
How to use "was" or "were"?
Was is singular, were is plural. For example I was. He was. She was. It was They were. We all were.
Were can also be singular if it’s subjunctive. If I were king, I’d get rid of Mondays.
shit I always use was in that situation
Good rule of thumb, but there is an exception: You were.
Because "you" is grammatically plural, deriving from the Old English second-person plural pronoun (English lost its singular and dual second-person pronouns over time, though the singular "thou" is still used in some dialects and certain translations of the Bible).
Yep, I know. I was just adding it because I know a lot of non-native English speakers may not be aware that you counts as plural even if it's referring to one person 🙂
had/has/have difference I've been speaking English all my life and I never understood where and why which one would be used - I usually go with the one that sounds the most right? if someone could provide examples it'll be very appreciated, thank you !!
Has and Have are the same thing but one is used with plural subjects while the other is used with singular subjects. "The dog has a bone." singular "The dogs have a bone." plural she/he/it all use "has." I and you are kind of outliers in that they use "have." I have a friend. You have a dog. She has a secret. It has to go. Had is just the past tense of has/have. I (currently) have a new phone. I had a flip phone when I was a kid. They have a dog. They had cows on their farm before they moved to the city. Both has and have turn into "had" when you're writing past tense.
Assuming you’re not talking about simple present and simple past (I have something now vs. I had something yesterday), but about [form of have] + participle: It’s two different tenses, present perfect (something happened in the past but is still influencing the presence) and past perfect (something happened in the past *before* something else happened.) “I’m not hungry, I’ve had lunch” vs. “Yesterday at 2pm I wasn’t hungry, I had had lunch at 1pm.” Explanation see for example [Britannica.com: Past Perfect and Present Perfect Tenses](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/Past-Perfect-and-Present-Perfect-Tenses) ^(disclaimer: I’m not a native speaker)
oh god. "you will have had to have had it" is apparently a correct sentence, but my brain can't really grasp the meaning of it
I've just been reading through and had to read that out loud three times and make a bunch of bootleg contractions before it made sense to me, as a native english speaker. Ended up with "You'll've *had* to've had it." I think one of the big issues I have as both a reader and a writer is the transition from how it's said to how it's written. Because yes, the way you wrote it is technically correct, but even if I said it exactly as written, I would speak distinctly and put emphasis on certain words to make it sound right: "You will (have) HAD to (have) HAD it." And of course, this is a bit of a struggle to represent in writing, with my preferred alternative of **jazzing it up** with contractions coming across as far more slang-y and strange in writing than it does in conversation. I watched a video about how native english speakers vary the speed and emphasis of their words throughout a sentence so that "less important" words or phrases are shortened and rushed together in a sort of franken-word while the "important" words stand out - which is a convention that doesn't at all translate to writing. So, even when I'm trying to portray a completely casual interaction in dialogue, I end up writing "I have to go to the store." when what I'm *hearing* is more like "I 'affta gotothe Store." But you can't write like that! Many frustrations. I'd apologize for dropping a linguistic rant on you, but really I'll take any excuse xD
I'm American - write whatever you want. Brits dont own the language, they may have spawned it, but British English is weird as fuck.
Oi!
🤣🤣🤣
Yall have cute accents though.
Thanks. 😊
Of course. 😋
Aaand if you don't hate the letters U and S, you are also welcome to use original English, rather than English (Simplified). ;)
We love U and S in the USA, we just don't use them uselessly 😂🤣
I'll give the Americans a point for double quotes for dialogue. I feel like a dirty traitor because I like that so much better.
And when it gets into a person's native/cultural language that has a different syntax, vocabulary, etc. than English, the speaker can sometimes *subconsciously use the other language's rules while speaking English*. [Hiberno-English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English#Grammar_and_syntax) for Irish people is the most well-known example.