First of all, hello! I'm new here. Let's get right to the point! I spent the summer with my cousins in the Bronx. Cursing is part of their vocabulary. They use it as humor also, which gave me an idea for a screenplay. Now..., do I stay true to the character, or is cursing frowned upon. Also, slang. How is that taken.
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Using curse words
- Thread starter dorio
- Start date
...... and that language and its usage *are* learned.
Obviously the grammar lessons didn't really pay off for you there, steve.
I see both sides of the issue here. Grammar isn't something that's natural, it's something that's learned. However, learning proper grammar may not be a matter of intensive study for some. There are people that can just pick it up quickly and relatively easy, while most others must labor to learn proper grammar...
See? Everyone is happy now...
See? Everyone is happy now...
How would you know if you're correct or not? You never learned grammar, right?
I never professed to be an expert at grammar, nor did I say you have to learn it to write scripts.
You did say you didn't learn it, and that anyone can get better at it by just writing, and that isn't true. Being able to point out my grammar mistake doesn't make that point any less wrong.
gelder
Last edited:
oh well, maybe not everyone will get better at grammar through years of writing, but "I" did.
I also gained a vast arsenal of verbs, and my vocabulary generally increased, as did my overall grasp of the English language.
It's not farfetched that this would be the case for others as well. I'm not a genius.
I also gained a vast arsenal of verbs, and my vocabulary generally increased, as did my overall grasp of the English language.
It's not farfetched that this would be the case for others as well. I'm not a genius.
I had a friend who had written dozens of songs and was at the forefront of the "electro-punk" thing that went through the Minneapolis are a few years ago. This was a few years before that. He had been struggling crafting songs and asked if there was an easier way. His compositions were hit and miss, but the ones that worked were really strong. I, with a background in music theory and classical violin showed him the magical western music 1-4-5 thingy... Whatever chord you use as your root, the 4 and 5 become good complementary chords in the progression (G-C-D, A-D-E, C-F-G, etc...).
When he went back through the songs he had struggled through writing note by painful note, he found the songs that worked fit this mold and the ones that didn't...didn't. After a moment of artistic anger, I challenged him to realize that it's just something we're programmed for as an audience from the earliest days onwards and to shift his struggle to remain creative within that framework.
3 Albums and tons of gigs
When he went back through the songs he had struggled through writing note by painful note, he found the songs that worked fit this mold and the ones that didn't...didn't. After a moment of artistic anger, I challenged him to realize that it's just something we're programmed for as an audience from the earliest days onwards and to shift his struggle to remain creative within that framework.
3 Albums and tons of gigs
And thankyou for adding support to the fact that you don't have to learn grammar to be a screenwriter. That makes two, TWO sold writers. AND for proving that people who make grammatical errors can still sell scripts!
and, lemme see, oh,
AND.... my early pages look quite different to the pages I write now. Very different, the level of sophistication now, is incredible. And no classes. At all. If you write every day, for a number of years, that's what happens.
Ah, according to steve, *might* happen.
And there is even better news, you actually get better as a writer, even when you're having a long break from it. You get better just doing nothing. That's how generous the process is. Just being you makes you a better writer.
You just have to be patient.
And steve, I hope you're not sitting there waiting for one egg to hatch... *shudder. You need a lot of irons in the fire.
and, lemme see, oh,
AND.... my early pages look quite different to the pages I write now. Very different, the level of sophistication now, is incredible. And no classes. At all. If you write every day, for a number of years, that's what happens.
Ah, according to steve, *might* happen.
And there is even better news, you actually get better as a writer, even when you're having a long break from it. You get better just doing nothing. That's how generous the process is. Just being you makes you a better writer.
You just have to be patient.
And steve, I hope you're not sitting there waiting for one egg to hatch... *shudder. You need a lot of irons in the fire.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, maralyn, according to you, just by writing more, you get better at grammar, even if you've never been taught grammar. And by not writing, you get better, too.
I don't know what I would do if I were you - writing makes you better, but not writing makes you even better, too! I guess YOU just get better and better, no matter WHAT you do! All you need is patience.
You learned grammar. You did. You may not have taken a class called "grammar", but when you were taught English, you were taught grammar. When you wrote and wrote and gave your pages to someone and they circled it with big red marks and you asked why and got answers, you were being taught; you were learning. "No classes at all," or not.
Thanks for your concern about my eggs hatching and my irons in the fire. I have more than enough to keep me busy.
gelder
I don't know what I would do if I were you - writing makes you better, but not writing makes you even better, too! I guess YOU just get better and better, no matter WHAT you do! All you need is patience.
You learned grammar. You did. You may not have taken a class called "grammar", but when you were taught English, you were taught grammar. When you wrote and wrote and gave your pages to someone and they circled it with big red marks and you asked why and got answers, you were being taught; you were learning. "No classes at all," or not.
Thanks for your concern about my eggs hatching and my irons in the fire. I have more than enough to keep me busy.
gelder
This thread is veering away from Dorio's thread. I think the discussion is interesting but I'm wondering if a new thread could be started about grammar. As it is informative but will certainly be missed by someone looking at the title "Using curse words".
As a amateur linguist, I've studied many "grammars", so my perspective when I read the thread is that there are three different interpretations being given to the word "grammar".
1. 'Grammar' is the organization (syntax) and modifications of words (inflections, etc.) to provide meaningful (semantic) sentence in a language.
-- This is the part of the thread where many people chime in. To be understood by an English speaker, it needs to follow the innate structure of English. Even people who are illiterate can grasp and learn to speak "proper" English. This aspect of grammar does not require it to be committed to writing. The reference to 'Yoda-Spanglish' kind of suggests that the utterance (written or spoken) needs to sound like the intended language. English is Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). Other languages have different orders: VSO, OSV, SOV, and more exotic. From the standpoint of this definition, "grammar" is learned without study but there are ways of writing or speaking that are "ungrammatical". This 'definition' however does allow for language change. There are 'learnable rules' that make utterances 'meaningful'.
2. 'Grammar' is a codification of the rules for proper writing and speaking among language speakers.
-- This part of the thread seems to raise the majority of the dissent. For academic purposes, 'grammarians' have developed a unique jargon, sometimes arcane, to dissect and analyze speech and writing. This, however, is true of every language that starts navel gazing. Sanskrit, Greek, Latin grammarians over a thousand years ago started the practice. Whether you have "passe simple/composee", "piel/pual", "animate infixes", "aorist tenses", "reflexive constructions", etc., these 'grammarians' dissect their languages. Now that is good because we do benefit from thinking about what and how we speak because it is the basis for how we think and organize thoughts. And it makes it teachable.
Do I think that a person must be fluent in the jargon such that "iambic pentameter", "ellipsis", etc.? Not necessarily. One needs a basic grasp of grammar rules helps to construct sentences. When I learn a language, I want to be understood so I need to master some basic rules. "I of name as-for John is" is poor English but is good Japanese "Watashi no namae wa John desu." It helps to know about "coordinating particles" like "wa", "o", "de", etc. Does it mean I get them right? No. That comes with practice and exposure. Learning any language, one learns the "formal" language. The Japanese taught to beginners uses "polite" forms rather than "abrupt" forms. The real challenge is understanding a film, television show, or song in another language when "formal" is out the window, if ya' gets what I'm sayin'.
3. 'Grammar' is an internalized template for generating utterances understood within a language community.
-- This is by far the most abstract of the definitions. For transformational linguists, grammar is dynamic. It is widely held that humans are "wired" for speech. All children seem to move through a sequence of skills in learning a language that then hones in to a specific language--sounds then nouns then adjectives then verbs. "B"--BALL--RED BALL--BALL FALL--RED BALL FALL DOWN--...--The red ball fell off the couch.
So tying in definitions (1) and (3), we all "learn" our language not necessarily by writing. Xhosa, a click language, has rules that are learned by five year olds yet were unwritten until relatively recent times. In studying heiroglyphic inscriptions, Egyptologists have found "grammar errors" by scribes. These are only known from having studied thousands of inscriptions and developing a "grammar jargon". The "st'm-f construction" has meaning only among those who've studied the language. It clearly wasn't mentioned by the Egyptians as it was implicit, though non-native scribes seemed to mess it up on occasion. And when I've read manuscripts by native Spanish speakers, I find grammar and spelling errors ("Que ases? La policia bienen. Corre!" => "Que haces? La(s) policia(s) viene(n). Corre!"). It's not just English writers who make 'grammatical and spelling mistakes'.
The issue is being readily understood. That's where (#2) comes in. I'm not suggesting we have the English language police. Some errors are easier to look past than others. "Their are" for "there are" can be a simple typo. When the errors become so distracting that you can't understand the meaning of the text, it's a problem. Rather than see the masterpiece, what is present are grey globs.
Yes, if a word is circled then I can know it's wrong, but it doesn't always tell me why, what it should be or if to include it at all. The use of "zhe" in Russian is very idiomatic like "ja" in German. I can research it and learn over time. Punctuation in other languagues can follow different rules from English. If nothing else, English writers should learn to use the comma--sparingly.
There is an excellent poem by Charles Battell Loomis called "O-U-G-H" that captures the frustration of trying to apply what one thinks one has learned to the wily beast of English spelling. And THAT would be lecture in itself.
The spoken elements of the language are innate for native speakers (#3) and some forms must be learned (#1) like lay/lie and set/sit. 'Lay' and 'set' are active, something you do to an object ('transitive'). 'Lie' and 'sit' are actions which something does ('intransitive'). Misuse of those is what I most often see.
Now, "Does a screenwriter need to know 'grammar' to write?" can be interpreted a variety of ways, which seems to be what's happening. For the purposes of getting a script past a reader, the writer should have a firm grasp of basic terms and written rules as in (#2). The writer doesn't need to know esoteric terms like suggested in an earlier post. They just need to know how to make subjects and verbs agree, know the difference between adjectives and adverbs, have some reasonable understanding of verb forms and a basic notion of using relative pronouns (who, what, which, whose, where). It helps to review using commas. Other than those basics, most writers have an innate sense to construct English sentences.
We pick up dialects from listening. If you watch TV, you can distinguish regionalisms--Southern, New England, Midwestern, British, Hispanic, etc. We can listen and learn without writing. "If one listens to the Queen's English, some of the elocution and elaboration will be learned indubitably." And I believe that practice writing and speaking will make you better at creating sentences (grammar, in all senses).
Grammar is not about creativity. It's about expressing one's ideas. And if the writer can't do that, well, it's like the solitary tree falling in the forest. And over time, the inability to garnish recognition can crush creativity and motivation. It shouldn't stop a writer from committing ideas to paper. But the writer wants to have it read, s/he needs to have a goal of improving in his craft which means learning to follow the rules of the language in which s/he writes. If one doesn't strive to improve, skills degrade. If one wants to be successful, one needs to push one's self to develop. In this industry, mediocrity and status quo don't cut it.
In writing for a current project, I need to follow the 'grammar rules' for Klingon. Needless to say, there are those audience members whose Klingon grammar is stronger than my own so I keep Okrand by my side. If grammar is important to the audience for an artificial language, it's no less so for English for the script reader. Beside me when I write are my thesaurus, a collegiate dictionary, and a English grammar text. Fortunately, my laptop and software provide all three. I just need the good sense to recognize when its suggestions are wrong! And in this age, there is NO EXCUSE for not using a spellchecker on one's manuscript. Anyway, good writing!
As a amateur linguist, I've studied many "grammars", so my perspective when I read the thread is that there are three different interpretations being given to the word "grammar".
1. 'Grammar' is the organization (syntax) and modifications of words (inflections, etc.) to provide meaningful (semantic) sentence in a language.
-- This is the part of the thread where many people chime in. To be understood by an English speaker, it needs to follow the innate structure of English. Even people who are illiterate can grasp and learn to speak "proper" English. This aspect of grammar does not require it to be committed to writing. The reference to 'Yoda-Spanglish' kind of suggests that the utterance (written or spoken) needs to sound like the intended language. English is Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). Other languages have different orders: VSO, OSV, SOV, and more exotic. From the standpoint of this definition, "grammar" is learned without study but there are ways of writing or speaking that are "ungrammatical". This 'definition' however does allow for language change. There are 'learnable rules' that make utterances 'meaningful'.
2. 'Grammar' is a codification of the rules for proper writing and speaking among language speakers.
-- This part of the thread seems to raise the majority of the dissent. For academic purposes, 'grammarians' have developed a unique jargon, sometimes arcane, to dissect and analyze speech and writing. This, however, is true of every language that starts navel gazing. Sanskrit, Greek, Latin grammarians over a thousand years ago started the practice. Whether you have "passe simple/composee", "piel/pual", "animate infixes", "aorist tenses", "reflexive constructions", etc., these 'grammarians' dissect their languages. Now that is good because we do benefit from thinking about what and how we speak because it is the basis for how we think and organize thoughts. And it makes it teachable.
Do I think that a person must be fluent in the jargon such that "iambic pentameter", "ellipsis", etc.? Not necessarily. One needs a basic grasp of grammar rules helps to construct sentences. When I learn a language, I want to be understood so I need to master some basic rules. "I of name as-for John is" is poor English but is good Japanese "Watashi no namae wa John desu." It helps to know about "coordinating particles" like "wa", "o", "de", etc. Does it mean I get them right? No. That comes with practice and exposure. Learning any language, one learns the "formal" language. The Japanese taught to beginners uses "polite" forms rather than "abrupt" forms. The real challenge is understanding a film, television show, or song in another language when "formal" is out the window, if ya' gets what I'm sayin'.
3. 'Grammar' is an internalized template for generating utterances understood within a language community.
-- This is by far the most abstract of the definitions. For transformational linguists, grammar is dynamic. It is widely held that humans are "wired" for speech. All children seem to move through a sequence of skills in learning a language that then hones in to a specific language--sounds then nouns then adjectives then verbs. "B"--BALL--RED BALL--BALL FALL--RED BALL FALL DOWN--...--The red ball fell off the couch.
So tying in definitions (1) and (3), we all "learn" our language not necessarily by writing. Xhosa, a click language, has rules that are learned by five year olds yet were unwritten until relatively recent times. In studying heiroglyphic inscriptions, Egyptologists have found "grammar errors" by scribes. These are only known from having studied thousands of inscriptions and developing a "grammar jargon". The "st'm-f construction" has meaning only among those who've studied the language. It clearly wasn't mentioned by the Egyptians as it was implicit, though non-native scribes seemed to mess it up on occasion. And when I've read manuscripts by native Spanish speakers, I find grammar and spelling errors ("Que ases? La policia bienen. Corre!" => "Que haces? La(s) policia(s) viene(n). Corre!"). It's not just English writers who make 'grammatical and spelling mistakes'.
The issue is being readily understood. That's where (#2) comes in. I'm not suggesting we have the English language police. Some errors are easier to look past than others. "Their are" for "there are" can be a simple typo. When the errors become so distracting that you can't understand the meaning of the text, it's a problem. Rather than see the masterpiece, what is present are grey globs.
Yes, if a word is circled then I can know it's wrong, but it doesn't always tell me why, what it should be or if to include it at all. The use of "zhe" in Russian is very idiomatic like "ja" in German. I can research it and learn over time. Punctuation in other languagues can follow different rules from English. If nothing else, English writers should learn to use the comma--sparingly.
There is an excellent poem by Charles Battell Loomis called "O-U-G-H" that captures the frustration of trying to apply what one thinks one has learned to the wily beast of English spelling. And THAT would be lecture in itself.
The spoken elements of the language are innate for native speakers (#3) and some forms must be learned (#1) like lay/lie and set/sit. 'Lay' and 'set' are active, something you do to an object ('transitive'). 'Lie' and 'sit' are actions which something does ('intransitive'). Misuse of those is what I most often see.
Now, "Does a screenwriter need to know 'grammar' to write?" can be interpreted a variety of ways, which seems to be what's happening. For the purposes of getting a script past a reader, the writer should have a firm grasp of basic terms and written rules as in (#2). The writer doesn't need to know esoteric terms like suggested in an earlier post. They just need to know how to make subjects and verbs agree, know the difference between adjectives and adverbs, have some reasonable understanding of verb forms and a basic notion of using relative pronouns (who, what, which, whose, where). It helps to review using commas. Other than those basics, most writers have an innate sense to construct English sentences.
We pick up dialects from listening. If you watch TV, you can distinguish regionalisms--Southern, New England, Midwestern, British, Hispanic, etc. We can listen and learn without writing. "If one listens to the Queen's English, some of the elocution and elaboration will be learned indubitably." And I believe that practice writing and speaking will make you better at creating sentences (grammar, in all senses).
Grammar is not about creativity. It's about expressing one's ideas. And if the writer can't do that, well, it's like the solitary tree falling in the forest. And over time, the inability to garnish recognition can crush creativity and motivation. It shouldn't stop a writer from committing ideas to paper. But the writer wants to have it read, s/he needs to have a goal of improving in his craft which means learning to follow the rules of the language in which s/he writes. If one doesn't strive to improve, skills degrade. If one wants to be successful, one needs to push one's self to develop. In this industry, mediocrity and status quo don't cut it.
In writing for a current project, I need to follow the 'grammar rules' for Klingon. Needless to say, there are those audience members whose Klingon grammar is stronger than my own so I keep Okrand by my side. If grammar is important to the audience for an artificial language, it's no less so for English for the script reader. Beside me when I write are my thesaurus, a collegiate dictionary, and a English grammar text. Fortunately, my laptop and software provide all three. I just need the good sense to recognize when its suggestions are wrong! And in this age, there is NO EXCUSE for not using a spellchecker on one's manuscript. Anyway, good writing!
But I never gave it a minute's thought. And you can't claim that I did. Because you weren't there.
It was never something I gave time to. It wasn't something I was hammered over the head with. Or even particularly made aware of. Certainly not ganged up on about.
hmm, ganged up on about.... Maybe it's ganged up on over....
I didn't spend one minute of my day thinking about grammar.
But you make it sound like I did. When I didn't.
And I was there. The whole time. And you weren't. Any grammar I learned from proofreaders was incidental. None of it mattered.
You're taking writers' focus away from what they should be focused on. You're leading them astray.
Not at all. Writers should focus on writing. I can't picture anything I've said has led anyone away from that. My focus in this thread has been on your statement that you can just type and type and learn grammar.
I don't care that you weren't "hammered over the head with it (grammar)". You learned it. I didn't have to be there. You learned grammar.
Grammar isn't instinctive. You can continue to deny it all you want, but it does not make your claim true.
gelder
Last edited:
DEF: in·stinc·tive
Adjective: (of a person) Doing or being a specified thing apparently naturally or automatically.
There. You said proper grammar just comes naturally over time, which is the essential definition of instinctive. This is not true, especially with regard to "proper" grammar.
Parse the words and phrasing as much as you'd like; your assertion is not correct.
gelder
Well, "instinctively", and "naturally along with a lot of writing" are not the same.
I.... picked it up.
Not learned, not garnered instinctively ..... I .......picked it up.
The same way a non English speaker picks up a lot of the language without learning, and without instinct, just by, ........picking it up.
No thought processes, no effort.... just by
.........picking it up.
And I am correct in that, that's how it was for me.
I.... picked it up.
Not learned, not garnered instinctively ..... I .......picked it up.
The same way a non English speaker picks up a lot of the language without learning, and without instinct, just by, ........picking it up.
No thought processes, no effort.... just by
.........picking it up.
And I am correct in that, that's how it was for me.
Did you even read the definition?
You learned grammar. Improving grammar is a slightly different point, but you still learned in order to improve. And you learned to have a starting point. When you learned English, you learned grammar.
This isn't harassment - it's a fact that you continue to deny.
gelder
You learned grammar. Improving grammar is a slightly different point, but you still learned in order to improve. And you learned to have a starting point. When you learned English, you learned grammar.
This isn't harassment - it's a fact that you continue to deny.
gelder