ANYWAY v.s. ANYWAYS

"I'd be intersted in hearing about your writer's group. . .I do quite a bit myself."

Candy, I imagine you write humor. Some of your postings are hilarious. I love the ones on the shabby British accent and the S&M whips and chains stuff.

My critique group are all writers who've finished their first novel and are in re-writes, except for one who has been published and is working on a second. Oh and then there's one who POD'd ( print-on-demand, a form of self publishing.) There are nine of us at the moment but we're losing one and just gained two, who may or may not stay.

We get together twice a month. We read our work aloud and each member has a copy to read along and correct minor punctuation mistakes on the paper. Then we discuss the work.We try to put more emphasis on the substance and the flow in our oral critiques. We also tell each other what we liked about the work. We think it helps a writer as much to know what he's doing welll as well as what may need improving. Of course a writer can accept or reject any critique. It's always good to ponder it though, I find, even if my first reaction is to reject it. There are some sticklers in the group who go on and on about words like "okay" and "alright" but overall it's helpful. I just wish ther were more women in the group for balance. There's just me and another woman who comes once in awhile and almost never brings anything.

I'm one of the first time novelists working on re-writes. My working title is "Marrying Well." It's mostly humorous. At least everyone laughs when I read it so that's a good sign.

What are you writing? Do you have critique groups where you live?

P.S. Candy. By the way, if you haven't seen my post on the "shabby" accents, American men, at least the ones I know and I know very many from all over the country, love English women's accents. Then again maybe it's not the accent at all but those and whips and high heels. Men have a sixth sense about things like that, don't you think.

Hi Terry, many thanks for the compliments! :-) It would be great if you'd join us at http://www.langcafe.net/. A few of us posting here are over there too, and it's a lot better - troll-free and some good discussions on language, linguistics and literature, but also on 'Culture' and 'General' topics. There's a subforum called 'Ars Scribendi' you might be interested in. I've posted a couple of samples of my work there. In fact I don't write humour (though I'd like to some day!) I'm trying (and it's extremely trying, as I'm sure you know! ;) to write a historical novel.

You've finished a novel? Then I bow down before you, seriously. I have the utmost respect for anyone who manages to write an entire book - I know how fiendishly difficult and time-consuming the whole process is. So, that's truly amazing!! It sounds like your group is really helpful. I'd love to attend one, but I currently live in Germany and I don't want to go to a German group - not that there's anything wrong with them of course, but my German isn't quite up to it, and of course I write in English, my native language. When I go back to the UK (probably in the next year or two), I'll look for a group. Although the concept of having people criticise my work is pretty daunting, I also realise it would be really helpful.

<<American men, at least the ones I know and I know very many from all over the country, love English women's accents.>>

Modesty prevents me from commenting on my own experience of this!! :-)
Hope to see you on Langcafe!

Thanks Candy, I'll check out langcafe. Sounds quite good, broader in range. I'll see you over there.

"I'm trying (and it's extremely trying, as I'm sure you know! ;) to write a historical novel."

Do I ever know. The re-writes are the killers. That's when you really have to polish and pull it all together.

It's funny that you're writing an historical novel as I'm on an historical novel jag right now. In particular, I'm reading about British colonial India from both the perspective of the Brits and the Indians. Right now it's The Jewel in the Crown by Paul Scott. At first I found the writing a bit labored but now it's going more smoothly. Maybe I just had to get used to his style. Good thing too as I bought all four of his Raj Quartet!

What kind of a historical novel are you writing?

"I'd love to attend one . . . but my German isn't quite up to it."

I don't think it would help you at all to have people who speak a different language critique your work unless you plan to write in that language.

We have a guy from Puerto Rico in our group, who has some trouble with his English but not nearly the trouble we have with Spanish. Anyway, we correct his language mistakes for him. He's a very good writer so I don't think we do much else for him but that alone is important for him to publish in English.

<<What kind of a historical novel are you writing? >>
Medieval - 14th century. To put it succinctly, a re-interpretation of things that really happened - the deposition and death of a king, told from the point of view of the king, the queen (who deposed him, along with her lover) and the king's lover. (!) Working title: "The Age of Treason". How about "Marrying Well"??

It sounds like something I'd like. Good title too. Which king?

I'll give you my pitch line on "Marrying Well."

"In her quest to learn the secrets of marrying well, a young girl discovers the ill effects of holy matrimony on its unsuspecting victims."

"In her quest to learn the secrets of marrying well, a young girl discovers the ill effects of holy matrimony on its unsuspecting victims."

Ooooh - I want to read!! Sounds most intriguing!
My king is Edward II, who gets absolutely slated in history books and online as one of England's worst kings, but I find him and his life absolutely fascinating. Obviously the kind of conflicts prevalent in his reign make him a much more interesting subject than a king beloved by everyone who died in his bed of old age! ;)

Who doesn't love novels about the worst kings! It makes the rest of us feel good. The good ones don't do that for you. It's a great premise for a novel. I imagine the research alone is daunting.

I registered for langcafe. Now I have to go and find my way around. Thanks for putting me on to it!

<<The etymology of "okay" is not really known, even though there are many guesses as to such. Note that when writing the word itself (and not abbreviating it) in most contexts, "okay", not "OK" "ok", should be used, even though the latter two are used as abbreviations for it.>>

Actually, for several decades in the 20th century the etymology of the word was unclear and debated by etymologists but now it's almost universally agreed by linguists to have derived from the jocular spelling "oll korrect," after etymologist Allen Walker Read's groundbreaking work based on his research of the word which he published in the 1960s (he just died in 2002 at the age of 96). The first written attestation of this word was found to be in the March 23, 1839 edition of the Boston Morning Post:

"He...would have the 'contribution box', et ceteras, o.k.--all correct--and cause the corks to fly, like sparks, upward."

There is a multitude of folk etymologies for the word out there, but now ironically one of the myths out there is that the origin of the word is disputed, when it's been clearly settled for a few decades now.

Anyone interested in more info on the topic can do a google search on Allen Walker Read or check out this obituary on him from the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1403400

<<"Anyway" and "anyways" are equivalent, "anyways" being a conserved Middle English genitive form that is used in various dialects, such as my own. Which form is used is simply a matter of the dialect in question. One note though is that while "anyway" is the form which prescriptivists have favored, "anyways" seems to be spreading in (at least North American) English dialects today. Of course, what they say has little pertinance to actual language usage, and trying to deprecate "anyways" falls into the same category as claiming that there is no word "alright" but only "all right", which, of course, is completely contrary to actual usage, both in speech and in writing, today.>>

Dear Kirk and Trav:

Look my friends, I don't know where you are from. And even though that explanation about was nice, Travis.
Well, I don't really want to offend, but... ANYWAY, I may accuse you of being ignorants of the English grammar. Even if you are native-English speakers you can't try to justify, talking about Middle-English, an incorrect usage of something like "Anyway". Only a small amount of uncultured people says "Anyways", and as they said above is something that anyone would avoid during a job interview.

I also worry about you guys saying: "In some areas they use it". Well, a friend of mine from New Zealand once said this: "LESS people is getting married these years." And after I corrected him, about the use of LESS people, because "people" is a countable noun so you must, you MUST use FEWER, not LESS. He accepted and confessed that a lot of people in New Zealand and ather countries says: "LESS people" all the time.

Being a native speaker of a particular language doesn't give you the right to destroy a language. Even if a large amount of people makes a mistake, it would be stupid for someone to make that mistake as well.

it says:

that explanation about was nice,

it should say:

that explanation above was nice,

>>Dear Kirk and Trav:

Look my friends, I don't know where you are from. And even though that explanation about was nice, Travis.
Well, I don't really want to offend, but... ANYWAY, I may accuse you of being ignorants of the English grammar. Even if you are native-English speakers you can't try to justify, talking about Middle-English, an incorrect usage of something like "Anyway".<<

For starters, just because some prescriptivist sort said that something is "incorrect" means absolutely nothing to me. English grammar, as at least I know it, is the grammar of my own dialect, period, and I couldn't care less what some English teacher somewhere says about it.

>>Only a small amount of uncultured people says "Anyways", and as they said above is something that anyone would avoid during a job interview.<<

Well, then most people here must be "uncultured" (I'm not sure you can call that a "small amount of people"), considering that "anyways" is very commonly used here natively.

>>I also worry about you guys saying: "In some areas they use it". Well, a friend of mine from New Zealand once said this: "LESS people is getting married these years." And after I corrected him, about the use of LESS people, because "people" is a countable noun so you must, you MUST use FEWER, not LESS. He accepted and confessed that a lot of people in New Zealand and ather countries says: "LESS people" all the time.<<

And "less" is also used in such a fashion here as well.

>>Being a native speaker of a particular language doesn't give you the right to destroy a language. Even if a large amount of people makes a mistake, it would be stupid for someone to make that mistake as well.<<

Actually speaking one's native dialect rather than using some rather artificial formal "standard" form is "destroying one's language"? And no, such usages are *not* "mistakes", but rather how such things are used natively in the dialect in question; only non-native speakers can make mistakes, production errors aside, by the very definition at a linguistic level of what "correctness" is in the first place.

<<I don't know where you are from.>>

I'm a native English speaker from California.

<<Well, I don't really want to offend, but... ANYWAY, I may accuse you of being ignorants of the English grammar.>>

Nah, I'm quite secure in my knowledge of English grammar, thank you very much :) I'm soon to graduate with a degree in linguistics, so I know at least a thing a two. So, not to toot my own horn, but toot toot.

<<Even if you are native-English speakers you can't try to justify, talking about Middle-English, an incorrect usage of something like "Anyway".>>

No one's "justifying" anything, as there's no need to. We're just using sound linguistically accurate historical explanations of the language variation we have on this particular issue today.

<<Only a small amount of uncultured people says "Anyways">>

Well that shows your unfamiliarity with dialectal variation and betrays a misguided belief that prescriptivistic notions of how language "should" be are inerrant and the end-all to any language discussion. Quite far from the truth, my friend. My point in earlier posts was that plenty of very well-educated and prestigious speakers still use "anyway" and "anyways" interchangeably, even if they might not write that way. The thing is, at least in the context of informal spoken North American English, "anyways" is rarely noticed. I've heard plenty of "cultured" and educated people (if that's an important consideration for you) use it here, so your comment that only a "small amount" of "uncultured" people use it is unfounded and irrelevant.

<<I also worry about you guys saying: "In some areas they use it". Well, a friend of mine from New Zealand once said this: "LESS people is getting married these years." And after I corrected him, about the use of LESS people, because "people" is a countable noun so you must, you MUST use FEWER, not LESS. He accepted and confessed that a lot of people in New Zealand and ather countries says: "LESS people" all the time.>>

So? Dialectal variation, man. It happens in Spanish, too. In fact, it happens in most languages with enough speakers spread over enough distances to produce different dialects. It's not "wrong" at all. I use "less" and "fewer" interchangeably with count nouns and have gotten along just fine in life :) (in addition to being a student I have three jobs so I must've done something right in those interviews--sometimes several rounds of them).

Anyway, Pete, natural languages always have a considerable amount of variation and to "correct" native speakers is ridiculous (what you did wasn't even actually correcting, but pointing out usage of a form which may not agree with some prescriptivist's arbitrary, misguided, whimsical and flighty notions of how language "should" be, no matter how people speak in other regions or sociolects).

<<Being a native speaker of a particular language doesn't give you the right to destroy a language.>>

Haha! As if "destroying" a language were even possible (it's not)! Pete, I applaud your interest in linguistic topics but your blind adherance to prescriptivistic notions and unfamiliarity with how language actually works means it's unfortunately quite hard to take your comments seriously.

<<Even if a large amount of people makes a mistake, it would be stupid for someone to make that mistake as well.>>

Those "mistakes" are not actually mistakes at all but natural variation and expected language change. Language is always changing. For example, speakers of Classical Latin decried the "slovenly" usage of the Latin of the masses, yet the very changes which were "incorrect" in the Latin of the masses would eventually become completely accepted and in fact expected in the modern Romance languages, which are not lacking for prestige.

I know it's a cheap shot, but I just can't resist.

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/992333/16612.htm

Apparently the same people who insist that a distinction be made between "less" and "fewer" also frown upon "a large amount of people". In any event, it must be "a large number of people ARE", and similarly "fewer people ARE getting married" and "a lot of peole SAY".

<<Anyway, Pete, natural languages always have a considerable amount of variation and to "correct" native speakers is ridiculous (what you did wasn't even actually correcting, but pointing out usage of a form which may not agree with some prescriptivist's arbitrary, misguided, whimsical and flighty notions of how language "should" be, no matter how people speak in other regions or sociolects).

<<Being a native speaker of a particular language doesn't give you the right to destroy a language.>>

Haha! As if "destroying" a language were even possible (it's not)! Pete, I applaud your interest in linguistic topics but your blind adherance to prescriptivistic notions and unfamiliarity with how language actually works means it's unfortunately quite hard to take your comments seriously.>>


That may well be true. One man cannot correct millions of people. I agree that is ridiculous, but it's not ridiculous trying to correct people who is mistaken. And, my friend, you can't say I haven't got familiarity with how language works. I suppose you might be thinking I don't like languages evolvig and changing, and it's true I don't like it when grammatical mistakes become correct forms used by every-fucking-one.

I saw it happening everyday in my country Peru, and other South American countries. Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia. They are really destroying the Spanish language. Fortunately, we have our Royal Academy of the Spanish Language, to tell those ignorants in Peru, Ecuador, Chile and Bolivia that their pseudo "different dialects" are a very crappy sample of language.

We protect our language to preserve it as pure as it was, as it is spoken in Spain and other purist countries like Colombia, and as it will be.

It's most of you, English speakers people who suffer from "SPOIL-MY-OWN-LANGUAGE - ITIS". A serious illness in some people, like in the guy of another post saying that he pronounces "CAR" like /kja:r/.