dakegra: (Default)
[personal profile] dakegra
I'm getting lost in my tenses and viewpoints, I think

"She turned it over, examining it from all sides."

should it be
"She turned it over, and examined it from all sides."

same with
"Monty agreed, taking the parcel from her and examining it himself."

should it be:
"Monty agreed. He took the parcel from her and examined it himself."

Date: 2010-08-12 08:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] roobarb.livejournal.com
I like 1 and 4

Date: 2010-08-13 01:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dakegra.livejournal.com
me too - I think they go quite well together.

Date: 2010-08-12 09:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elaby.livejournal.com
Both are grammatically correct. I do agree with [livejournal.com profile] roobarb about liking 1 and 4 best :) I think it's because the two of them together have nicely different sentence structure. I think your "-ing" examples give more of an impression of the actions taking place simultaneously (Molly is turning it and examining it at the same time) where as the "-ed and -ed" examples separate the actions (Molly turned it over, then after turning it over she examined it from all sides).

:D Grammar is the best!

Date: 2010-08-12 10:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_generica_/
Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. :)

Date: 2010-08-12 11:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elaby.livejournal.com
Hee! Yay, go us :D

Date: 2010-08-13 01:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dakegra.livejournal.com
I was worried that one was 'had done' and the other was 'doing', if that makes sense?

Then I posted up here and carried on writing. PERIL happened (did [livejournal.com profile] caitirin show you the piece?)

Date: 2010-08-13 03:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elaby.livejournal.com
YES OMG IT WAS AWESOME *rattles you* I really, really liked it! Also had a major Doctor Who scary moment at one of Monty's lines, which increased the overall tension like crazy XD

Date: 2010-08-13 03:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dakegra.livejournal.com
the "I'm sorry" bit?

Hee! It was fun to write. I had to take a break though, it went in a completely unexpected direction. Curse that Zenn!

Date: 2010-08-13 04:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elaby.livejournal.com
That was it! XD I can't wait to read more!

Date: 2010-08-12 10:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lebeautemps.livejournal.com
It's all good. They just mean different things, is all.

Date: 2010-08-12 10:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pkdan.livejournal.com
You don't need the comma in #2. One subject and two verbs. (or is that one of those Queen's English vs. Dirty American Bastardization of English? For the record, I follow the British style for quotation marks. Makes much more sense to me.)

#1 is better than #2, but I don't know which is better of the last two. It might depends on context. Is he agreeing with something independent of taking the parcel (which is my guess), or does his agreement have to do with the action of him taking and examining the parcel?

Date: 2010-08-13 01:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dakegra.livejournal.com
He's agreeing with her comment on the parcel, as he's examining it himself.

Date: 2010-08-12 10:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chiller.livejournal.com
I don't have a problem with any of them. The reader understands, as s/he reads 1 and 3, that the timeline after the comma belongs to the timeline before the comma.

"I sat in your room, wearing your shoes."
    ^Past                 ^ present, but a subclause of the "sat in your room" statement.

You could replace the comma with "while" and the addition of that conjunction would make the sentence work - but the sentence flows better as you have written it, with a comma in place of "while".

Date: 2010-08-13 01:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dakegra.livejournal.com
that's made things clearer. Thanks. :-)

Date: 2010-08-13 02:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] boliviafang.livejournal.com
I'm no expert, but I think the first sentences are much more engaging. I'm sure there's a rule that allows for this, and maybe someone's explained it already. The present pluperfect reflexive, or the past particulate subjunctive, or the indeterminate perambulatory pessitive, or something.

I don't think the first sentences are wrong, is what I'm saying, and while I wouldn't think a thing of the second sentences if I saw them alone, seeing them against the first makes me realize the seconds are ... leaden, somehow.

...ooh, "leaden"... I like that.
mutter mutter

Date: 2010-08-13 01:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dakegra.livejournal.com
leaden is good. I like leaden.

I'm still contemplating the next move in our game. I have three (I think) possible scenarios. I might write up all three and let you choose.

:-)

Date: 2010-08-13 06:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paula-abroad.livejournal.com
thanks for the lesson. love posts like this. :)


on a unrelated note - dave, i thought you might like this

Date: 2010-08-13 08:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dakegra.livejournal.com
Ooh, I saw that via someone on Twitter (are you on twitter?)

Fabulous, aren't they? So much time and effort and love and attention gone into each one. Utterly brilliant.

Date: 2010-08-13 09:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paula-abroad.livejournal.com
(not on twitter)

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829 30 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 9th, 2026 10:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios