Message-ID: <1677eli$9706251137@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
X-Archived-At: <URL:http://www.netusa.net/~eli/erotica/assm/Year97/1677.txt>
From: Celeste801@aol.com
Subject: Advanced Celestial Grammar 1.4
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.d,alt.sex.stories.moderated,alt.sex.stories
Followup-To: alt.sex.stories.d
Path: qz!not-for-mail
Organization: The Committee To Thwart Spam
Approved: <usenet-approval@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
X-Moderator-Contact: Eli the Bearded <story-admin@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
X-Story-Submission: <story-submit@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
Advanced Celestial Grammar 1.4
(Updated Sept 18, 1996)
by Celeste
Believe it or not, there are at least two college instructors in the United
States who use my grammar notes with their classes. They say it's the best
way they have ever found to make grammar interesting. Since it's
back-to-school time, I figured this would be a good time to repost my
Advanced Celestial Grammar.
My Grammar Notes are incomplete. The basics are in Celestial Grammar 1.4,
which I am posting at the same time that I post these Advanced Notes.
While the examples are often bizarre or irreverent, I assure you that the
rules and concepts expressed herein are almost always correct. You can pass
important tests by knowing, understanding, and applying these rules.
The following concepts are currently covered in Advanced Celestial Grammar:
1. Restrictive phrases and clauses.
2. Dangling and misplaced modifiers.
3. Relative and interrogative pronouns.
4. Verb tense and time perspective.
1. RESTRICTIVE PHRASES AND CLAUSES. A RESTRICTIVE PHRASE OR CLAUSE is one
that is so essential to the meaning of the sentence (or clause) that it
cannot be omitted without substantially changing the meaning of the sentence
(or clause). Restrictive phrases and clauses are NOT set off by commas. In
general, when we say these phrases and clauses orally, we do not pause when
we speak them. On the other hand, NON-RESTRICTIVE PHRASES OR CLAUSES are not
considered by the writer to be essential to the meaning of the sentence -
they just add additional information. Non-restrictive information IS set off
by commas. For example,
"My girlfriend who likes oral sex was with me at the movie."
If the writer punctuates the sentence in this way, he is suggesting that the
information conveyed by "who likes oral sex" is essential. The most likely
explanation is that he has more than one girlfriend, and the one who was with
him at the movie was the one who likes oral sex. The same words would have a
different meaning if they were punctuated like this:
"My girlfriend, who likes oral sex, was with me at the movie."
This would mean that he has one girl girlfriend (who likes oral sex and was
with him at the movie). By putting the words "who likes oral sex" within
commas the author is saying that they are non-restrictive - that is, they
don't change the meaning of the sentence; they just add some additional
meaning.
{Here's why grammarians use the word restrictive to describe this use of
commas. In the first example, the guy has many girlfriends, and "who likes
oral sex" _restricts_ the reference to a subset - in this case to just one of
them. In the second example, the guy has only one girlfriend, and so "who
likes oral sex" _does not restrict_ the reference to a subset.}
I recently read the following comment in the disclaimer at the beginning of a
story:
"This is my first story, written from a woman's point of view."
I think the author meant to leave out the comma. Without the comma, the
sentence would suggest that the author had written other stories, but none of
these was written from a woman's point of view. With the comma, it means
that this is the first story he ever wrote (or published), and this first
story is written from a woman's point of view.
Technically, the same logic should be applied even to single words:
"The woman enjoyed having sex with her dog Ralph."
Without a comma between "dog" and "Ralph," this sentence technically suggests
that the woman had more than one dog, but her enjoyment was restricted to
Ralph. However, lots of good writers ignore this nuance - especially if the
number of dogs would be clear from the context or if nobody would care
anyway. Another good reason to omit the comma with a non-restrictive word or
phrase occurs when the comma would add (rather than remove) confusion. For
example,
"In one evening Sharon had sex with Sue, her dog, Ralph, the night
watchman, Bill, and Ray, her ex-husband."
In this example, it's not obvious whether Ralph is the dog, the night
watchman, or a separate person. It would be more obvious that Sue had fucked
only four animate beings if the sentence were punctuated like this:
"In one evening Sharon had sex with Sue, her dog Ralph, the night
watchman Bill, and Ray, her ex-husband."
Of course, a better solution would be for Sharon to become celibate - or at
least monogamous.
2. DANGLING AND MISPLACED MODIFIERS. A _misplaced modifier_ is a phrase
that is supposed to modify one word but is placed in the sentence in such a
way that it appears to modify the wrong word. A dangling modifier is a
specific type of misplaced modifier. It just dangles (hangs there), usually
at the beginning of the sentence or clause. In the following example, it
logically sounds like the guy is sucking his own cock:
Having sucked my cock vigorously, I spread her legs and began to mount
her.
The ambiguity is removed if the sentence is written like this:
Having sucked my cock vigorously, she spread her legs and invited me to
mount her.
Here's a dangling modifier I found in a story I was reviewing:
After thoroughly sucking the toes of both her feet, she sat down, placed
her stockinged feet on either side of my still erect cock and began to
masturbate me with the soles of her stockinged feet!
What this sentence literally says is that the _woman_ sucked her own toes
before she masturbated the guy's cock. What the author meant to say was
this:
After I had thoroughly sucked the toes of both her feet, she sat down,
placed her stockinged feet on either side of my still erect cock and began to
masturbate me with the soles of her stockinged feet!
Actually, either activity might be fun to watch; but the author should be
clear.
Even single words can be misplaced and cause confusion. What does the
following sentence mean?
I only made love to Bob that weekend.
Literally, this means
I only made love to Bob (and did nothing else with Bob or anyone else)
that weekend.
However, the author probably meant
I made love only to Bob that weekend. (I didn't make love to Tom,
Dick, or Harry that weekend.)
Or the author might have meant
I made love to Bob only during that weekend. (I didn't make love to
him prior to or after that weekend.)
Even very good writers occasionally use misplaced or dangling modifiers. One
of my students recently found a dangling modifier in Nathaniel Hawthorne's
"The Scarlet Letter." (I understand this is what the advertisements mean
when they say that the Demi Moore version is an "adaptation" of the original
- the producers cleaned up the dangling modifiers.) More to the point, here
is part of a sentence written by one of the best authors on a.s.s.:
"...we enjoyed our platonic relationship and the chance to talk about
our dates and relationships with a sympathetic member of the opposite sex."
What this author meant to say was this:
"...we enjoyed our platonic relationship and the chance to talk with a
sympathetic member of the opposite sex about our dates and relationships."
The most famous example, of course, is the sentence taken from the SAT:
"He could only masturbate after the test was over."
That must have been a rough test! What the sentence literally says was that
after the test was over all the poor guy could do was jerk off. The correct
answer put only before after, suggesting that he simply had to wait till the
test was over to do his more important solitary work. Actually, if you're
familiar with the SAT, you'll probably agree that the original sentence is
perfectly plausible.
In many cases the ambiguity is cleared up by the context. But if you have
time to revise your work, why not make it easy on your readers by putting the
modifier (in this case _only_ in a place where it is clear what it modifies -
in this case, right before the word or phrase to which it refers)?
Here's your final exam on misplaced modifiers. Can you see why a person
might say "Ouch!" while reading this passage from an actual a.s.s. story?
Kathy helped me up from my chair and removed my shirt.
Cara bent down and untied and removed my shoes. Jennifer
unbuttoned my pants and let them drop to the floor exposing
a hard-on through my boxers, which Karen quickly removed.
Just to be cautious, the author should have considered putting the final
clause in a separate sentence: "Karen quickly removed the boxers." As it
is, the reader might think Karen removed the hard-on. SNIP!
3. RELATIVE AND INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS: WHO and WHOM (also WHOEVER and
WHOMEVER)
Technically, who and whom are either relative or interrogative pronouns.
That doesn't matter for now. The rules for using relative and interrogative
pronouns are identical.
The main rule is that the way the word is used in its clause determines the
form to use. In general, if it's a subject (nominative case) use WHO (or
WHOEVER). If it's an object of a verb or of a preposition (objective case),
use WHOM (or WHOMEVER).
If you are uncertain how to apply this rule, you can do it by ear. Simply
replace WHO by HE (or SHE) and WHOM by HIM (or HER), and see if the sentence
sounds right.
That is the man WHOM I plan to seduce tonight. (WHOM is
the object of seduce. I plan to seduce HIM tonight. "I
plan to seduce he tonight" sounds absurd.)
That is the woman WHO will seduce me tonight. (WHO is
the subject of will seduce. SHE will seduce me tonight.
HER will seduce me tonight sounds absurd.)
WHOM do you plan to seduce tonight? (Just answer the
question: I plan to seduce HIM (not HE) tonight.)
WHO will seduce you tonight? (Just answer the question:
SHE (not HER) will me tonight.)
In America, correct grammar is often viewed with suspicion. Therefore, some
people use WHO almost all the time, especially when it occurs at the
beginning of a sentence. Therefore, intelligent people may say the
following, even though they know each sentence is incorrect:
WHO did you fuck last night? (This should be "WHOM did
you fuck last night?" If you say it correctly, the person
to whom you are speaking will know you're either an
English teacher or a narc.)
WHO do you want to sleep with tonight? (This should be
"With WHOM do you want to sleep tonight?" However,
guys to whom this would be said would suspect that
they were in for an expensive and perhaps boring
evening with a girl who would say this correctly. It's
just not cool.)
My impression is that in written speech, almost anyone can feel comfortable
using the proper word. I guess maybe the ordinary person thinks if you have
time to revise, then it's OK to use WHOM.
Sometimes confusion arises from the fact that WHO/WHOM appears to be part of
a different clause. However, as long as you put the word in the right clause
and follow the preceding guidelines, you will not make mistakes. Here are
some more difficult examples:
I know WHO will seduce me tonight. (Some people think
that WHO is the object of "know." This is not accurate.
WHO is the subject of "seduce." The whole clause "who
will seduce me tonight" is the object of "know." You can
solve the problem by inserting HE/HIM. HE will
seduce me.)
I know WHOM I plan to seduce tonight. (Some people think
that WHOM is the object of "know." This is not accurate.
WHOM is the object of "seduce." The whole clause
"whom I plan to seduce tonight" is the object of "know."
You can solve the problem by inserting HE/HIM. I
plan to seduce HIM.)
The issue is sometimes more difficult with WHOEVER. This is because many
people who can distinguish WHO and WHOM by ear get confused by the longer
word.
I'd like to have sex again with WHOEVER seduced me last
night. (Many people incorrectly say WHOMEVER,
because they think the word is the object of the
preposition "with." This is incorrect; it is the subject of
"seduced." Again, you can solve the problem by
inserting HE/HIM. HE seduced me last night.)
I'd like to have sex again with WHOMEVER I seduced last
night. (Many people correctly say WHOMEVER, but
they do this because they think the word is the object
of the preposition "with." This is incorrect; it is the
object of "seduced." Again, you can solve the problem
by inserting HE/HIM. I seduced HIM last night.)
That's all there is to it.
4. VERB TENSE AND TIME PERSPECTIVE: In general, you should start with one
tense and stick with it, unless you have a reason to change. The most common
mistake is for authors to mix the present and past tense together. I do this
myself when I am writing my first draft of these reviews; but I make an
attempt to go through my manuscript before I post it and adjust the verbs to
a single tense - usually the present.
It would normally be considered a mistake to write the following:
Susie walked into the room. I go over to her and start
to flirt with her.
On the other hand, a good writer might mix tenses like that on purpose. As
written, the first sentence tends to describe a mundane, past event (in the
past tense). By using the present tense in the second sentence, the author
may be trying to bring us back into the past and feel that we're seeing it
actually happen.
If my students do this and seem to be doing it for a purpose, I let them get
by with it. Were I to find these sentences in Hemingway or Steinbeck, I
probably wouldn't even bother contacting their publisher.
A serious problem is once you start changing tenses, it may be difficult to
get back to the regular (past) tense. As I said, if you're a good writer and
have a feel for the language, you can possibly get by with changing tenses,
and the shift may even enhance your story. But most authors should find a
tense and stick to it.
MIXED ACTION: Once you choose a main tense for your story, you DO have to
change tenses to describe action that occurs BEFORE or AFTER your main
action. I am not going to try to describe exact guidelines for all the verb
tenses that occur in the English language. Maybe I'll do that some other
time. Right now, all I want to say is this: when you change tenses, make
sure the change conveys what you really want to say.
Here is an example of a MISTAKE made by a very good writer:
There was no sign of her at my place. I guess she went to see her
boyfriend. It took me a long time to get to sleep that night,
wondering about Brenda and her boyfriend, and what they did together.
The problem is with the verb "guess." The author is describing something
that happened in the past. All the other verbs are in the past tense. It
WOULD be reasonable to use "guess" in the present tense, but then it would
mean that the "guessing" took place at a different time than everything else.
As it is written, the second sentence can be paraphrased thus:
Even today I don't know where she was. I guess she went to
see her boyfriend.
In the context of the story, that paraphrase makes no sense. It's not what
the author meant to say. The narrator is writing NOW about something that
happened many years ago. At the time the narrator is supposed to express
this thought, he DOES know that Brenda was not with her boyfriend. (In fact,
the main gist of the story is that the narrator WAS the mystery boyfriend -
unknown to him at that time.) What the author meant to say was this:
Today I know where she was. At the time I assumed she had
gone to see her boyfriend.
The problem is that the incorrect verb actually has a perfectly legitimate
meaning; but that meaning is not what the author meant to say. If authors do
this too often, readers have no choice except to ignore the author's verb
tenses; and this deprives the author of an effective tool for communicating
action clearly. I would have written the second sentence like this:
I assumed she had gone to see her boyfriend.
{I would have used "assumed" instead of "guessed," because I think that verb
describes more clearly what the narrator actually did. He didn't "take a
guess"; he made an assumption}
In the very next paragraph the author says this:
Sunday morning she was there again, sitting in the back. This
time Brenda was wearing a bikini and sunning herself. I guess
it was better than her just being wrapped up in a ball like the
last couple of days. Communication lines were still down....
In this case, "guess" is fine. All the other action is in the past, but the
author is NOW retrospectively making a guess why Brenda was wearing a bikini
and sunning herself. The sentence means this:
Even today I'm not sure why Brenda was wearing a bikini and
sunning herself. I guess it was better than what she had been
doing.
My point is NOT that this author is an idiot. He's a very good writer.
Rather, my point is that verb tense DOES make a difference. I find that the
best strategy is to find one tense and stick with it - except when you have a
good reason to change tenses.
To put it differently, be sure to make your verb tenses actually describe the
real sequence of thought and action.
In addition, the English language has a wide variety of verb tenses. It is
not sensible to try to cover them all here; but here are some examples of
verbs showing past action:
We fucked for nearly an hour.
We have fucked for nearly an hour.
We had fucked for nearly an hour.
We did fuck for nearly an hour.
We were fucking for nearly an hour.
We had been fucking for nearly an hour.
We used to fuck for nearly an hour.
Each of the preceding sentences expresses a slightly different nuance. Try
them out, and see if you can tell the difference.
Finally, words other than verbs can help describe when an action took place.
Use these words carefully and correctly. For example, a person might say
I am going to fuck my husband's brains out tonight.
If that person carried out her plans and commented on the activity the next
day, she would say
I fucked my husband's brains out last night.
Of course, she could also make the first statement, but that would require a
second fuckation.
Where people sometimes make mistakes is when they put the idea into a more
complicated sentence:
My husband sent me roses the next day because I had
fucked his brains out last night.
The problem is that words like "last night" and "tomorrow" take their
perspective from the time they are stated. The previous sentence should have
said this:
My husband sent me roses the next day because I had
fucked his brains out the night before.
--
+--------------' Story submission `-+-' Moderator contact `------------+
| story-submit@qz.little-neck.ny.us | story-admin@qz.little-neck.ny.us |
| Archive site +--------------------+------------------+ Newsgroup FAQ |
\ <URL:http://www.netusa.net/~eli/erotica/assm/> .../assm/faq.html> /