Grammar Questions.

[Dr.Dorkness]

Hi all,

As some of you may know, my native language is not english. I am having some trouble with a few dialogs. Specificaly the grammar. I think the concerning sentences are correct. But this is based on what I heard on TV or radio, not actual study of the language. I'd like to check if I'm on the right path.

I'm coming with.

This is a reply of a character when asked if he is coming along on the journey. I believe it should be: "I'm comming with you." But this would not fit the character.

I know, dear. But worry not.

This is said to comfort an other character. It should be: "I know, dear. But don't worry." Again this would not fit the character.

These are a few problems I have come across while rereading what I have written so far. So i'd like to hear your opinions. Thanks in advance.

 

[Chilari]

For a start, "coming" only has one M. It's from "come".

Secondly, when it comes to dialogue, it's okay to be a bit more flexible, because people don't talk with correct grammar all the time (and for some people, most of the time). This "I'm coming with" is acceptable if the context is clear.

As for "But worry not" - that works too in dialogue. The syntax is a bit old fashioned but it's perfectly fine.

Thus going from TV and radio for dialogue is fine, because that's how people actually speak. Outside of dialogue you will need to be more careful though.

 

[DSCroxford]

Form my POV both sentences are acceptable in that form. I believe you need the spelling to be *coming* but apart from that I could read those both in a story and not think it to sound wrong.

Actually that being said the second sentence is how I actually converse in the physical world and I say that exact thing a number of times to the other half.

Many a story I have read over the years proves that there is going to be no set rule of how people are meant to talk, as long as it is not a jumble of words I think we are safe, it all goes down to how the dialect has developed in that characters town/country and something like this can be explained away by that sort of factor.

I hope this helps calm your concerns a bit.

 

[advait98]

Yeah, they're both okay, to provide a third reassuring opinion.

"I'm coming with," I think is used in American slang, right?

As for, "But worry not", worry not. It's fine. Lots of people converse like this in the modern world too, like DSCroxford above.

Dialogue is one thing in stories that you can tinker with without fear of an explosion, as also said above.
So worry not.

 

[kayd_mon]

Yes, "I'm coming with" is fairly common in American slang, although I don't hear it as often as I did when I was a kid.

 

[BWFoster78]

I'm pretty sure I've used both those exact sentences (the "worry not" portion of the second one anyway) in personal conversation, if that means anything...

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

As Chilari pointed out the syntax in:

"I'm coming with." & "Worry not." is unusual or old fashioned. The use of sentences like these will depend on what you're trying to convey. If you want to give the setting or the character a different feel by using and old fashioned structure then they will do fine. However, neither could be considered standard in modern use.

If you want your dialogue to read as modern readers speak:
1) "I'm coming with." would probably be "I'm coming." or more specifically "I'm coming with you."
2) "Worry not." would more commonly be said as "Don't worry."

Again though....this all depends on how you're trying to depict the characters speaking the dialogue or how the population as a whole would speak in your setting.

 

[Steerpike]

I do agree that "worry not" is old fashioned. I have said "I'm coming with" plenty of times, and I've heard it said by people of various ages, so I don't think it's an old-fashioned phrase but instead is one that is currently used quite a bit.

 

[advait98]

Hey , right, since this thread is already here and I don't want to post another, would you mind derailing it a bit for one of my own grammatical queries?

Which is the correct way to write it-
I am a fan of Chelsea. OR
I am a fan of Chelsea's.

Going with my instincts, it's probably the first one, but I've heard the latter used so many times, it's put a slight worm of doubt into my mind

Again, only if you don't mind.

 

[Chilari]

First one. Substitue Chelsea with any other football team and it sounds wrong the second way:

I'm a fan of Manchester United's
I'm a fan of Arsenal's
I'm a fan of West Ham's

The last one sounds like being a fan of a type of meat, not a football club. All wrong. Stick to Chelsea.

Also doesn't work for other sports:

I'm a fan of Jenson Button's (a fan of his what? Tendency to run triathlons and marathons?)
I'm a fan of Force India's (again, their what? Scottish driver?)

Edit: and obviously, when I say other sports, what I mean is, the only sport that matters, because those are both from the same sport.

 

[advait98]

First one. Substitue Chelsea with any other football team and it sounds wrong the second way:

I'm a fan of Manchester United's
I'm a fan of Arsenal's
I'm a fan of West Ham's

The last one sounds like being a fan of a type of meat, not a football club. All wrong. Stick to Chelsea.

Also doesn't work for other sports:

I'm a fan of Jenson Button's (a fan of his what? Tendency to run triathlons and marathons?)
I'm a fan of Force India's (again, their what? Scottish driver?)

Edit: and obviously, when I say other sports, what I mean is, the only sport that matters, because those are both from the same sport.

Thanks, it's been on my mind a long time. Although I'll respectfully disagree with you on which is the only sport that matters. Stupid Bleacherreport, they should improve their grammar.

 

[Chilari]

Eh, F1 is the only sport that matters to me. And I am a fan of both Jenson Button and Force India's Paul Di Resta, though not so much the other Force India driver, after I spent the autumn and winter crossing my fingers that Jaime Alguersuari would fill that seat, only to discover they or possibly another team (though when it emerged no other team still had a seat free) had gone back on their word about his seat. Also no respect for Sutil since he got convicted of assaulting someone. If he lets his temper flare like that off the track, is he a danger to other drivers on track?

Ahem.

Grammar is bad all over the place; I'm not surprised that some official thing (website?) has it wrong. I see bad grammar all the time - from my company's website to a plot synopsis of a book I was browsing on the Kindle store. You'd think they'd check.

 

[advait98]

And football is the only sport that matters to me, though I do keep track of the goings-on in F1. It's a national shame that Narain Kartikheyan wasn't selected for any team or something like that. Also a blow to our progress that Nico Hulkenberg joined Sauber. But I digress.

Seeing bad grammar on official sites (like Bleacher Report) and recognising it for what it is does give a false sense of pride. But then I wish they'd stop doing so, after all, most young kids do learn english by reading about the things they love. Yeah, you'd think they'd be careful about what they officially publish. I bet the authors are crestfallen once they read over their particular piece.

 

[Dr.Dorkness]

Grammar is bad all over the place; I'm not surprised that some official thing (website?) has it wrong. I see bad grammar all the time - from my company's website to a plot synopsis of a book I was browsing on the Kindle store. You'd think they'd check.

I know what you mean. even in several books I have come across. but sometimes it is even worse. The name of the wind from Patrick rothfuss for example, one of my favorite books, has some very bad typo's. Like hte in stead of the.

Some grammar mistakes in book have a very good excuse. (Well, not realy,) I''m speaking of translated books. I see it everywhere. looking at tolkien and other good authors books which have been translated to dutch for example. Markus Heitz''s books have very bad english grammar. He writes in german. some sentices are not easily transated. (please excuse my bad spelling)

 

[Chilari]

I'm not sure some people even care about grammar, even when it's out there in an official capacity. But then I think some people think they're right when they're not, or think they're better at grammar than they actually are. I know I make the odd mistake in forum posts and emails, or when I'm writing first drafts, though mostly I can blame those on keyboard failure when I'm at my home PC.

I'm pretty sure the people I work with just don't care, mostly because they know someone like me will clean it up if a client is going to read it. The thing is some of my colleagues in similar roles to me - those who final check, format and organise documents that go out to clients - are not so good at grammar. And sometimes sub-contractors and contract partners who send me information for inclusion in bid documents haven't proofread their stuff - and with them, I have to send it back to them if I make even one change beyond the cosmetic, so they can approve my changes before it gets included. Speaking of which, back to work.

 

[Chilari]

I know what you mean. even in several books I have come across. but sometimes it is even worse. The name of the wind from Patrick rothfuss for example, one of my favorite books, has some very bad typo's. Like hte in stead of the.

Some grammar mistakes in book have a very good excuse. (Well, not realy,) I''m speaking of translated books. I see it everywhere. looking at tolkien and other good authors books which have been translated to dutch for example. Markus Heitz''s books have very bad english grammar. He writes in german. some sentices are not easily transated. (please excuse my bad spelling)

You did that on purpose, didn't you?

 

[Dr.Dorkness]

Some, But most of them are typo's, mistakes and laziness. like I said I'm not that good in the english language sometimes, and I hate that.

 

[Chilari]

Some, But most of them are typo's, mistakes and laziness. like I said I'm not that good in the english language sometimes, and I hate that.

I can honestly say you're better at English than I am at Dutch. Or for that matter, Latin, French, ancient Greek, German and Spanish - all of which I have learned in some official capacity. My French stretches to asking where the hotel, swimming pool or bus station is, or asking for a crepe with raspberry jam. My Spanish is limited to asking for two beers, please (I honestly can't remember any more of it than that) and my German is limited to a few nouns. I'm slightly better at Latin, and can handle some short inscriptions. My ancient Greek is very rusty but once I'd worked out the letters I'd be able to handle a few nouns: hospitality, gate, honey, amphora (though that one is kind of cheating) and a few others. I'm not good at languages that aren't English.

 

[Dr.Dorkness]

My dutch isn't great either. But that is because I'm Dyslectic and the fact that my first language (if you can call it that) is a local dialect, which is a mixture between Dutch, German and some words of it's own. It also has some different grammar rules. it isn't recognised as a language (like Frisian) because a few miles away they speak a whole different dialect. My German is above average (just don't ask me to write it.) and my English is too. At least when I look around me. At school I was the best at those languages. I also speak a little bit French and Japanese.