diagramming sentences
Sandra Dodd
"Steven, who I work with, who wasn't very nice to me yesterday, but
that doesn't matter, plays saxophone."
So I talked about diagramming sentences and how the top level of that
one would be "Steven plays saxophone."
And I talked about it being a little like programming, where
statements can contain other statements/conditions/whatever, but you
have to eventually close all the ")}].
So Holly asked whether diagramming sentences is to help people write
more clearly. I thought a second and said no, it's so people can talk
about the details of grammar.
Holly just looked over my shoulder and said I wrote what she said
better than the way she said it. I said I thought that's what she
said, but she said she had asked was diagramming sentences for so when
people write, their writing can be more easily understood?
but that "write more clearly" is so much easier for people to
understand.
She has a friend in her 20's who teaches English, and asked if she
could go to her to talk about English and diagramming sentences and I
said no, they don't do it anymore, but Kelly Lovejoy totally knows how
to do it.
And so I've brought Holly's sentence here thinking maybe someone could
diagram it for her.
I could do it but I'm only 80% confident in diagramming dependent
clauses and like that.
I did explain semi-colons to my friend Bo last night.
I wonder if diagramming sentences was a way to make the study of
language seem more scientific. You can squint and see the chalkboard
at a school being full of math equations, or sentence diagrams.
Sandra
that doesn't matter, plays saxophone."
So I talked about diagramming sentences and how the top level of that
one would be "Steven plays saxophone."
And I talked about it being a little like programming, where
statements can contain other statements/conditions/whatever, but you
have to eventually close all the ")}].
So Holly asked whether diagramming sentences is to help people write
more clearly. I thought a second and said no, it's so people can talk
about the details of grammar.
Holly just looked over my shoulder and said I wrote what she said
better than the way she said it. I said I thought that's what she
said, but she said she had asked was diagramming sentences for so when
people write, their writing can be more easily understood?
but that "write more clearly" is so much easier for people to
understand.
She has a friend in her 20's who teaches English, and asked if she
could go to her to talk about English and diagramming sentences and I
said no, they don't do it anymore, but Kelly Lovejoy totally knows how
to do it.
And so I've brought Holly's sentence here thinking maybe someone could
diagram it for her.
I could do it but I'm only 80% confident in diagramming dependent
clauses and like that.
I did explain semi-colons to my friend Bo last night.
I wonder if diagramming sentences was a way to make the study of
language seem more scientific. You can squint and see the chalkboard
at a school being full of math equations, or sentence diagrams.
Sandra
Vicki Dennis
I always thought of diagramming sentences as being similar to setting up
equations out of "word problems".
I loved diagramming and found the diagramming itself to be useful in
unraveling "complicated" sentences.
vicki
equations out of "word problems".
I loved diagramming and found the diagramming itself to be useful in
unraveling "complicated" sentences.
vicki
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> "
>
> I wonder if diagramming sentences was a way to make the study of
> language seem more scientific. You can squint and see the chalkboard
> at a school being full of math equations, or sentence diagrams.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
>My editing instructor diagrams sentences for fun!
In class, we *did* diagram sentences, but briefly. When copy editors
edit for clarity, we want to make sure that what the author writes is
clear to the reader. It is useful to know grammatical structure, and
it can help to tease a sentence apart, so you know how to put it back
together. Sometimes, the terminology gets in the way, though. It's why
we have reference books <g>.
Suppose Holly had written that sentence for publication. If she had
created a character who was saying this, a copy editor might leave it,
as this might be exactly how this character would speak. Sort of
stream-of-consciousness.
However, if she had written it in non-fiction, an editor might suggest
re-writing it.
In any case, (checking my Chicago Manual of Style <g>) "Steven plays
saxophone" is an independent clause. "Who I work with" and "who wasn't
very nice to me yesterday" are subordinate clauses. The phrase
beginning with the conjunction "but" - "but that doesn't matter" - is
a conjunction linking an independent clause to a subordinate clause
(conjunction is "but"; the independent clause is "that doesn't
matter"). Everything between "Steven" and "plays saxophone" are also
interrupters (interrupting the main thought). There are general rules
for punctuating the subordinate clauses and interrupters.
So, a copy editor might suggest rewriting the sentence this way:
"Steven - who I work with and who wasn't very nice to me the other day
(but that doesn't matter) - plays saxophone." Or they might suggest
completely recasting it to: "Steven, who I work with, plays saxophone.
He wasn't very nice to me the other day, but that doesn't matter."
Of course, whether it would be one sentence or two would also depend
on what was written before or after. Is the fact that he wasn't very
nice more important than playing the saxophone, regardless of the
disclaimer "but that doesn't matter"? Or was the point that he plays
saxophone? It can get rather complicated!
For those who enjoys diagramming sentences, as my instructor does,
it's like a word puzzle, I think.
My class has been enlightening. I remember my English teachers'
admonitions to "never start a sentence with a conjunction", and
"never end it with a preposition"? Bunk! I love this quotation from
Charles Allen Lloyd in 1938:
"Next to the groundless notion that it is incorrect to end an English
sentence with a preposition, perhaps the most wide-spread of the many
false beliefs about the use of our language is the equally groundless
notion that it is incorrect to begin one with 'but or 'and.' As in the
case of the superstition about the prepositional ending, no textbook
supports it, but apparently about half of our teachers of English go
out of their way to handicap their pupils by inculcating it. One
cannot help wondering whether those who teach such a monstrous
doctrine ever read any English themselves."
I still have to stop myself from questioning my sentences when I begin
them with "and" or end them with "in." And (ha, ha!) there are indeed
occasions when starting a sentence with "but" would not be correct,
strictly speaking <sigh>.
Anyway, I hope that helps. Or maybe it muddifies it beyond recognition
<g>.
Robin B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny C
>I usually write how I talk. Almost always. A long time ago an english
> "Next to the groundless notion that it is incorrect to end an English
> sentence with a preposition, perhaps the most wide-spread of the many
> false beliefs about the use of our language is the equally groundless
> notion that it is incorrect to begin one with 'but or 'and.'
> I still have to stop myself from questioning my sentences when I begin
> them with "and" or end them with "in." And (ha, ha!) there are indeed
> occasions when starting a sentence with "but" would not be correct,
> strictly speaking <sigh>.
lit teacher told all of us to write using our own voice and I took that
advice literally. So, sometimes, when I'm writing like I talk, I use
prepositions first. It gives a natural flow to how my thought goes from
my head to my fingers and out into words.
Sometimes, when editing things I've written, I tweek it a bit to make it
read easier. And sometimes I miss stuff, or the way I've worded
something causes another meaning I didn't intend, and all of that is
probably due to tone of voice and inflection, which sometimes can't be
read.
This is where my mother's voice in my head comes in handy. She's
amazing in this aspect of writing. She should've been a copy editor.
She writes for her local small town newspaper, and sometimes the editor
changes her wording, that she carefully and meaningfully chose, and it
changes the meaning and context enough to make it confusing. It bothers
her when they add or remove punctuation that she purposely put into her
writing. She has said, on a number of occasions that the changes make
her look illiterate, since they are simply wrong, grammatically. She
is the kind of person who will catch EVERY mistake that a copy editor
has missed when a book gets published.
Robin Bentley
>Ideally, the relationship between copy editor and author should be
> This is where my mother's voice in my head comes in handy. She's
> amazing in this aspect of writing. She should've been a copy editor.
> She writes for her local small town newspaper, and sometimes the
> editor
> changes her wording, that she carefully and meaningfully chose, and it
> changes the meaning and context enough to make it confusing. It
> bothers
> her when they add or remove punctuation that she purposely put into
> her
> writing. She has said, on a number of occasions that the changes make
> her look illiterate, since they are simply wrong, grammatically. She
> is the kind of person who will catch EVERY mistake that a copy editor
> has missed when a book gets published.
respect for the author's work. Copy editors are supposed to fix
grammatical and punctuation errors, and only slightly more than that,
depending on the level of edit. Changes other than spelling (and even
then) are often queried to the author. Authors are entitled to reject
copy editors' changes.
So, mistakes in books can happen at every level: editor, copy editor,
proofreader, typesetter, and author (who has the right to refuse
changes). I had no idea about how that worked until I started this
program. I can always find mistakes in published works. But, I make
them myself. I have a more empathetic view of everyone involved in the
process, now.
Sounds like your mom had to deal with editors who clearly knew less
about writing well than she did. That's not right or good.
Robin B.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sandra Dodd
-=Sounds like your mom had to deal with editors who clearly knew less
about writing well than she did. That's not right or good.=-
"Right" and "Good"? Where do we appeal those things?
I've never had my work edited by anyone who wrote better than I did.
-=-sometimes the
that changes the meaning.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
about writing well than she did. That's not right or good.=-
"Right" and "Good"? Where do we appeal those things?
I've never had my work edited by anyone who wrote better than I did.
-=-sometimes the
> editorit
> changes her wording, that she carefully and meaningfully chose, and
> changes the meaning and context enough to make it confusing.-=-This has happened to me lots of times, or someone will put in a comma
that changes the meaning.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
On Mar 16, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
changes. And tell editors why what they did was wrong (they can learn
something, too)!
Robin B.
> -=Sounds like your mom had to deal with editors who clearly knew lessSorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
> about writing well than she did. That's not right or good.=-
>
> "Right" and "Good"? Where do we appeal those things?
>That's poor editing, then. But you, as the author, can reject any
>
> I've never had my work edited by anyone who wrote better than I did.
>
>
> -=-sometimes the
>> editor
>> changes her wording, that she carefully and meaningfully chose, and
> it
>> changes the meaning and context enough to make it confusing.-=-
>
> This has happened to me lots of times, or someone will put in a comma
> that changes the meaning.
changes. And tell editors why what they did was wrong (they can learn
something, too)!
Robin B.
Robin Bentley
> something, too)!Hey, I screwed up my own punctuation! Should be:
>
something, too!).
Robin B.
Sandra Dodd
-=-That's poor editing, then. But you, as the author, can reject any
changes. And tell editors why what they did was wrong (they can learn
something, too)!-=-
The first part depends on the contract. The second part I always do
(and the third part they sometimes do).
-=> -=Sounds like your mom had to deal with editors who clearly knew
less
The odds of the best writers having editors who are better writers
than they are isn't so high, so what makes it "right"?
There are writers who aren't good with spelling or mechanics, but
GREAT with ideas. They're "right and good" (and lucky) if they find
an editor who can clean up what they spilled.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
changes. And tell editors why what they did was wrong (they can learn
something, too)!-=-
The first part depends on the contract. The second part I always do
(and the third part they sometimes do).
-=> -=Sounds like your mom had to deal with editors who clearly knew
less
> about writing well than she did. That's not right or good.=-Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> "Right" and "Good"? Where do we appeal those things?
>-=-The best writers are writing, not editing.
The odds of the best writers having editors who are better writers
than they are isn't so high, so what makes it "right"?
There are writers who aren't good with spelling or mechanics, but
GREAT with ideas. They're "right and good" (and lucky) if they find
an editor who can clean up what they spilled.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
>>Probably true. Perhaps that's why I'm exploring editing. I used to
>> "Right" and "Good"? Where do we appeal those things?
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
>> -=-
>
> The best writers are writing, not editing.
write and be paid for it. I've been questioning that, these past few
years. But, hey, you've read what I write, both here and in print. You
could probably tell me <g>.
>True, again. It's not "right" that copy editors can change meaning,
> The odds of the best writers having editors who are better writers
> than they are isn't so high, so what makes it "right"?
context, punctuation and even spelling, if it comes to that, without
working *with* the author. I meant that it wasn't fair that Jenny's
mom had to deal with that. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that her mom's
work was published as edited.
>Yes. The ideal editor takes pains to preserve an author's ideas and
>
> There are writers who aren't good with spelling or mechanics, but
> GREAT with ideas. They're "right and good" (and lucky) if they find
> an editor who can clean up what they spilled.
voice. Cleaning up the other stuff is supposed to help do that.
Robin B.
Jenny C
I meant that it wasn't fair that Jenny's
quick, and she usually doesn't even see the edits until it's been put to
print. She does call the editor to let him know his mistakes, but it
doesn't do much good since what is done is done.
She's a good writer and meticulous with her editing, but because of
that, it makes her writing take time. She's not really a writer though,
she does far more accounting for non-profits than anything else. The
newspaper article is a little weekly side gig, short opinion piece.
My sister is the writer, she just finished a book that took about 2 yrs,
in which time, nobody could read it or know anything about it. I
imagine my mom is in the middle of reading and offering editing
suggestions right now. I haven't gotten a copy yet.... I'm guessing it
has personal stuff in it, or stuff about people she knows and that is
why she wouldn't let anyone read it in progress. Who knows, maybe
there are embarassing stories about me and her in it, that could
certainly emcompass a book!?
> mom had to deal with that. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that her mom'sWell, it's for a small town newspaper, so the turn around time is very
> work was published as edited.
> >
> >
quick, and she usually doesn't even see the edits until it's been put to
print. She does call the editor to let him know his mistakes, but it
doesn't do much good since what is done is done.
She's a good writer and meticulous with her editing, but because of
that, it makes her writing take time. She's not really a writer though,
she does far more accounting for non-profits than anything else. The
newspaper article is a little weekly side gig, short opinion piece.
My sister is the writer, she just finished a book that took about 2 yrs,
in which time, nobody could read it or know anything about it. I
imagine my mom is in the middle of reading and offering editing
suggestions right now. I haven't gotten a copy yet.... I'm guessing it
has personal stuff in it, or stuff about people she knows and that is
why she wouldn't let anyone read it in progress. Who knows, maybe
there are embarassing stories about me and her in it, that could
certainly emcompass a book!?