%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |  You don't see it if you don't expect it, but you can see it from the corners of your eyes |
|
** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only ** An SEP field is a generated energy field which affects perception. Entities within the field will be perceived by an outside observer as "Somebody Else's Problem", and will therefore be effectively invisible unless the observer is specifically looking for the entity. from Wikipedia Douglas Adams invented the SEP in the third part of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Watch me squint. ** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **
|
| I don't know why I never took the time to research it, maybe because I suspected it would be a nuisance. I've got to admit, though, that I've always assumed I knew the rules perfectly well. Well, I didn't, and I owe Chy an apology for the wrongful information I gave in her review. I promise I'll never comment on it again. I'm talking about the use of the verb to be in subjunctive mood, or to phrase it as a simple question: Is it "If I/he was" or "If I/he were". After Chy wrote she didn't know either, I decided to get my teeth into it and searched the net. I got into several forums with differing opinions. I'll list them, and you can take a guess at what you think is correct. 1. "were" is subjunctive, "was" is indicative If he was drunk, he shouldn't have taken the car. If he were drunk, there'd be an explanation for his odd behavior. 2. "were" is correct, "was" is incorrect If I were a millionaire, I'd buy a sports car. *If I was a millionaire, I'd buy a sports car. 3. both are correct If I was a millionaire, I'd hide my money. If I were a millionaire, I'd hide my money. 4. "were" is formal usage, "was" is informal usage If consensus were possible, the parties would continue the negotiations. If I was taller, I'd punch your face. 5. "were" follows traditional rules, "was" is widely accepted. If America were still a British colony, the pound would be the currency. If I was younger, I'd be interested. Admittedly, the examples don't help that much, and the categorizations seem sometimes interchangeable. In order to get the differences, I'll start with another term because the solution to the question depends on the interpretation of the term. What is grammar? Grammar is a set of rules by which the elements of meaning (words) in a language are combined. It's easy to see: The boy eats an apple. *Apple the an boy eat. The second sentence violates four rules of English grammar (according to my counting). It's the job of linguists to walk around, look at sentences, and find out the rules that link the words. When they find a rule, they clap their hands and feel (rightly) they've earned their paycheck. How do they find the rules? They ask a lot of people if they think this or that sentence sounds good or bad to them. Good in the sense of the first example, bad in the sense of the one marked with an asterisk. If most people agree on one version, then this is the standard. This approach to grammar is called descriptive grammar. Once you've covered all of the rules, you'll want to write a book about it. And if you are lucky, your book will be set in stone. It'll become a bible for correct usage of language; it will become normative grammar. It's what most people are familiar with; it's what they learn in school. Now, the example given above is fairly easy. No native English speaker would say the *version is a well-formed English sentence. So where does the trouble start? It starts with the variants, regional as well as social, and changes over time. There's a lot of juggling and haggling when you put up a standard. If most people agree on one version, you'd want to take that. If you've got a number of different dialects whose ideas on a given rule vary greatly, you might simply take the largest ethnic group. And often enough, the rules are taken from the ruling class, without any headcount. There are even funnier arguments. To which of the following sentences do you subscribe? 1. Hi, it's me. 2. Hi, it's I. In fact, the first example has always been in use. However, linguists argued that it must be wrong because in Latin (oh, Classic Mother of Languages) the verb "to be" takes the nominative. As a consequence, many educated people taught their children to use the second variant, and you'll find native English speakers who will tell you it's the only correct one. The first one just "sounds" plain wrong. I gave the example in case anyone of you would like to argue that normative grammar is logical. It's not. It's how it happened. It's history. Does grammar ever change? Thou bet! It starts somewhere, probably as a fashion, becomes widespread until it's finally recognized as a standard. And yes, the normative grammar books are of course the last to know. Now the five answers in the beginning should make a little more sense. Actually, they are more a personality test than a grammar test. So, here's the solution: 1. You're a traditionalist. You understand the difference between counterfactual and inferential use, and wouldn't give it up for the world. And you'll probably tell others they got it wrong. Unasked, too. 2. You've been indoctrinated with the traditional rules of subjunctive mood, and you stick to them. Or it's the way it's always been said around you. 3. You are a usage liberal. You've heard both versions, and both sound okay. What's the problem? 4. Like type 1 and 2, you know the rules, and when you write a letter, you try to remember them. But you remember having been corrected about it when you were speaking. 5. You've read the American Heritage Book of English Usage. Or you've gone to this site. http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html Anyway, you know.  Me, I couldn't have been wronger. But now I can decide on the form, based on who I speak to, or in fiction, who's the speaker. I'll just have to find out who exactly uses which form. Mmmmh. |
Somehow, I could manage to do something useful and type up the next review. But then, there was nothing else to do. It's July, and I'm freezing.
|
| Whenever the Content Rating System irks me, I give the excuse that I'm European. Over here, we often shake our heads at the prudish Americans and their tendency to self-censorship. Of course, we're not entirely free of it. Movies are rated for age; the movies are recommended for 6, 12, 16, and 18 years, based on the amount of violent and sexual content. Sounds familiar, eh? I've once witnessed that a radio comment was drawn back because the journalist had said "shit", right after she had fluffed, and had neglected to cut it out. (Since a friend of mine worked at that radio station, I know, too, that the woman got some heat because of it.) On the other hand, certain celebrities may utter the same without being censored in any way. "Scheiße" is really the word to look out for in German; there's no equivalent for the f-word; at least not for swearing. In general, though, we're less afraid to offend. And without bothering to back up my argument, I'm not the only one who thinks so. You'll have to believe me on this one. On WdC I feel I'm either in danger of ignoring the possible pitfalls, or to underrate the thick skin of readers. I've assumed the policy of not bothering much with E and 13+ ratings. I'm writing for adults, and certainly every grown up has access to 18+ items, haven't they? Personally, I'd never exclude any items. I'd way rather be offended than protected, on principle. You never know what you might miss. Apparently, I'm wrong. In an email communication I learned yesterday, that there are several members who set their page content filter to exclude items 18+ and higher. To me, that means even when I address an adult audience, I would not want to rate too highly just to be safe. I wouldn't go so far and tune down the items. If you don't want to read it for personal reasons, I just shrug. Now, what irks me is that I have to bother so much. And I wonder how much it really matters. So I set up this little poll.
Let's hope I'll get to the bottom of this. |
| Yesterday, I read all my reviews from the beginnings to now. Gosh, that's an exercise in humiliation. The first that appears ends on: Finally, I thought ticking that box meant the review would be saved as a draft. Instead it made the review public.  And there's lots more. I wish you could edit them, just to spare me the embarrassment. The funny thing is I like those reviews. When I reread them I still think I had a point - as rudimentary as they were. I've come some way since. But when I look back, there's a quirkiness about the reviews that I miss about the ones I do today. I feel blasé - and cruel. Hardly one ever complained.Tact has never been my forte, and yet, the authors kept telling me to go on. I will, too. But I won't forget these kind souls who replied with kindness to my blatant comments cheerily and encouragingly. Without you, I wouldn't have survived here. I'll try to do the same to noobs, and I hope I'll manage. |
| I hope this is the last time I swear to come back. I've missed Writing.com miserably, and I thank you guys for all the love you sent my way. Because you did. I'll catch up as quickly as I can. While I won't bore you with all the bloody stuff that has happened in the meantime, there is one event I do want to tell you because it inspired my newest project. I've got a friend, an on-and-off student in my classes, who is a painter. (He promised to send me the link to his website as soon as it's ready, and you shall have a look. He's good.) Fernando came back to Berlin this spring, and we had a good talk. He asked about my writing and if I thought about submitting. "Not yet," I said, "I haven't got that level yet and..." Basically, I fed him the same lines as last year, but this time he didn't buy them. "You do," he said, "I read one of your stories. And anyway, how will you know if you don't try?" Now, I'm a sucker for flattery, but I'm sure it wasn't that. It would be easier if I could say that Fernando always says what he thinks, so he wouldn't lie, but that wouldn't be quite true: He's awfully diplomatic. I know though, how he deals with bad works in the art scene, having gone to several exhibition openings with him. He doesn't comment on anything he doesn't like. His silence is damning. My guess is he wouldn't have mentioned "Sparks" if he hadn't read it. Instead he was very encouraging. And the more did his advice sting: "How would you know if you didn't try?" I decided on a time plan. In Fall, I'm going to have something ready for submission. I've got a few stories in the works, though none is finished. And where would I submit? This is where my new project ties in. I had to start reading the market, and I browsed lots of sites until I didn't know anymore where I'd started. I needed something more systematical. I'd read ten stories of every mag I could find, and write a review to share with you. Now, that's an awfully big project, and I won't do all the mags I find. I'm hoping that the path will clear at some point. But I had to start somewhere. I chose the Boston Review mainly because they've got an online archive, so the stories were easily accessible. If you've got ideas on where to submit, I'd be eager to hear them. Anyways, here's the link in case you're interested:
God, it feels good to be back and blogging again. Missed that, too. |
| Oh guys I'm most terribly sorry. I've been in trouble in real life.Nothing serious, you've got no reasons to worry about. I'm healthy and stuff. Just life. Errh. Finances. Blast it. No, don't. You guys have been worring, and you've been countin on me. And I've failed you. I'm trying to get with it step by step. Give me a few days. You'll get the full Techniocolor version in time. Love Anne |
| Chester had an interesting entry in his blog today. Apart from the fascinating information he garners from a certain encyclopedia, he listed his favorite words. Having learnt English as a second language, I've certainly got a different feeling toward the vocabulary than a native speaker. The words taste strange for the first time you use them, and a non-native speaker wouldn't immediately connect them with the concept they convey. I've fallen in love with English words since I began learning the language. The first I remember was "cheeky". Cheeky was the name of a dog that appeared in the first English lesson I ever had, and the teacher translated the name. These days I wish the dog was called Spot. It's something I miss, knowing all the coded clichés in English. When I fall in love with a word today, it's mostly an adjective. English is incredibly rich with descriptive terms, and they cover thousands of nuances. Words like "chewy" don't even have an equivalent in German. I tend to like words better that have a Germanic root, the Roman ones have a distanced feel. That's probably my German self, though. Of course there are many words from Latin or Greek in German, too, but English has got more, and they are integrated more strongly than in German. Often when I translate a word from German to English, I actually translate into Latin, and to me, the word loses its charms. In these cases, I feel German is more tangible, more rooted than English. Adjectives I love - apart from the ones I already named in Chester's blog - are "brittle", "fickle", "taut", "gaunt", "ungainly" (what is gainly?), "grumpy", "threadbare", "askew", "vile", "cantankerous", "wicked" (sounds wicked). The verbs I like are similar, and mostly chosen for sound: "scurry", "shatter", "loathe", "cackle", "moan", "flinch", "botch", "jingle", "slobber", "mock". As for my favorite nouns, I think the concept is more important here: I like "wrath" for example. There are many words in English to say something similar, and in German, too, but for some reason "wrath" is special. "Gore" is another word, we'd use several different ones to convey the same concept. "Shackles" is more for the sound than the concept, though.  But the best about the English language is its creativity. A noun can easily be transformed into a verb or an adjective, or the other way around, and it becomes something different, something funny, or ironic, a slang expression: "gofer" is one that comes to mind. "Gerrymandering". "To railroad someone", "to be sandwiched". Oh my. I could go on for ages. I simply love this slippery, ambiguous, unfathomable language. I've always done. |
puravida  's workshop is over. I meant to blog about it while it was going on. There were many topics that forced me to think things over. And it provided me with more tools for creating characters. But it took too much time. At least, I can show you some of the results.
And if you've got any idea what I could do with these characters, I'd be happy to know. |
| At puravida 's workshop we discussed the names of characters, yesterday, and that brought on this train of thoughts. There's magic in every name, and everybody has their own story how they came to acquire this particular label. Was a family member honored? Is there a message in the name? Was it decided on a whim? I'll share some of my favorites: The name of one of my colleagues' was decided by a fortune teller. One of my friends had chosen a name for her son but was overruled by her husband - and the midwife. An American friend got to choose her own name. She chose Pepper. Surnames can be funny, too, especially if they once conveyed an attitude of the bearer. But my favorite surname story comes from a British historian, Eric Hobsbowm. His surname was originally a typical German Jewish name: Obstbaum (fruit tree). His name changed twice when the family emigrated, first in Egypt, where it became something like Obstbowm, and later when the family emigrated from Berlin to Britain in the 1930ies. His own interpretation for the second change was that the immigration official must have been a Cockney. When we choose a name for a character, we usually don't get to tell those stories. And usually we shouldn't. We've got a story to tell, and how someone got by a name is usually not part of it. Still, we use great care to find the right one. For me, the tricky part is to make it look realistic. I want a reader to look on the page and say, yes this is Frank Ingham. He couldn't have any other name. It's the way we look at our surrounding. Somebody tells us her name is Sarah, or Marge, or Alison, and in that moment, all she does and says will belong to that label. And then we say the name fits her. Two years ago, I decided to act on that old ambition to write fiction. And as per bloody usual, got writer's block immediately. As a way out, I decided I'd work out characters with the help of a character sheet. I created documents for characters between the ages of 10 and 90. Then I took a book with a long index. (It was a book with humorous quotes.) I took the first 81 first names, and attached them to the years in order of appearance. The surnames, I chose following the qwerty on my keyboard. I went to the letter in the index and chose a surname, as I saw fit. Afterwards, I googled the names. About 80% existed. Most were lawyers, doctors and artists of various kinds. I think that just reflects on the people who've got homepages. But there was interesting stuff, too. I had invented a member of the John Dillinger gang, an Australian soldier who'd died in WWII, and whose diary was published online. I'm particularly proud of Trevor Masters, a Welsh rapist who had fled British jurisdiction. Often I found the first names were unlikely names for their given age. But my bet is people would believe the name anyway. How can you not believe somebody saying: "My name is..." I find myself believing the handles on WdC, even if I know they aren't real. |
| Gosh, I've neglected this blog, even though I had enough reason to update. kiyasama has awarded me a merit badge for reviewing on behalf of "The WDC Angel Army"  . It means a lot to me. The amount of reviews my fellow angels put out is truly humbling.Then I got another merit badge from WithyWindle . You should really read the inscription, I thought it was so sweet. Go to her blog, too. "Invalid Item" . She's spent a semester in Germany, and her observations were delightful. I'm so glad she decided to continue the blog after she returned to America. It's fun to read.Finally, look at the top of the blog. GabriellaR45 gifted me the lovely awardicon. Thank you so much. You made me feel so guilty for not updating for more than a week. The awardicon really gives my little ramblings some class!This week will be rather busy because I'm taking part in puravida 's workshop on characters. It's only just started, but it promises to be fun and insightful. She's given us a lot of links for reading, and that already has given me different angles to explore.Ah gosh, now I got started, I could blog about her first assignment about what's in a name. I also liked Satuawany  's and Lynn McKenzie 's entries on albums they could write stories about. I read them and thought about an entry about music that inspires me (though it would be songs rather than albums). I guess I'll leave that for later. Or tomorrow. I couldn't get online yesterday, and I still have a feeling I've got to catch up. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
