Grammar and other bugbears

Anne here, responding to a reader question from Laura S. who said: My two book clubs provide the exposure to award winning books. I do have a concern, though. I find grammatical errors that I would think an editor would correct—and sometimes the author has studied or taught English.

For example, “I hate thinking of US leaving the poor girl to suffer”. That should be OUR leaving the poor girl. (That was not a direct quote.) There are many times when the possessive should be used. One owns the action. <snip>

I love reading all the Word Wenches’ books and I don’t believe I find grammatical errors in them, but I would like for you all to discuss it among you. Look through several books and see how many times you see “him doing something”. (Laura wins a book for this question.)

Laura, I might well be guilty of that particular 'mistake.' I put 'mistake' in inverted commas, as English usage and grammar can vary. As well, the English language is in constant flux, evolving and changing all the time, and since I write for modern readers, I tend to err on the side of common usage, rather than correct usage.

According to this grammar tutor, there is some confusion about how to treat the gerund in the possessive form. "A debate has been raging about this for some time and the jury is still out, but the lines tend to be drawn up between the ‘formal/standard’ position on one hand and the ‘informal’ position on the other." You can read the full article here.

An editor's job — and here we're talking about a copy editor— is to find and highlight mistakes of various kinds, but copy-editing is an art, rather than a science. Some copy editors don't particularly worry about perfecting grammar, others are grammar fiends and will highlight every tiny error or departure from 'the rule'. However, that may have the effect of changing the author 's voice, or the character's voice, and no good copy editor would want to do that. In fact, I'd suggest that an editor who chose grammar over voice would soon lose their job.

I freely admit that I frequently abandon correct grammar in my books — mostly it's deliberate, for a variety of reasons:
1) Most people (and therefore characters) use a mix of correct and incorrect grammar when speaking, and, when thinking, their grammar is even less likely to be correct. Most of the narrative parts of a modern novel are in fact characters thinking and describing on the page — in their own point-of-view— rather than the omniscient narrator style many older books were written in.

Sometimes using correct grammar makes a sentence or some dialogue sound stilted, or overly formal to modern readers.

2) Believe it or not, grammar varies, depending where you come from. English English grammar is not always the same as American English grammar, and Australian English grammar and usage is more like English English grammar, but is sometimes a little bit American. (And what a shocker of a sentence that is!  <g>)

For instance in American English it seems perfectly correct to say 'She had gotten the story from Joe.' I was reprimanded throughout my childhood for using gotten in such a way, as where I come from (and also in England) the correct grammar is, 'She had got the story from Joe.' So while I go to some lengths to avoid "gotten" in my stories as it sounds so wrong to me, I also try to avoid the use of 'had got', as I know all my US readers would shriek at such a 'mistake.' It's a balancing act.

Sometimes what readers perceive as a mistake might actually be different usage, for instance Americans will use the expression "visit with" meaning to chat or talk with each other. For me, 'visiting' means going to visit someone, dropping in on them, paying a call— it's a physical act, and not about talking. And if you 'visit with' someone, it means two or more of you are going to pay a call. Confusing, isn't it, the many variations of our language? And even though my publisher and editors are in the USA, my books are set in England, my characters are English, and I'm Australian, so there are always choices to be made.

For those interested in the difference between American and English grammar and usage go here and here and here. There is also a great collection of articles and links about the future and nature of grammar here.

3) In the 1960's and 70's in many parts of the English speaking world, teachers stopped teaching formal grammar. It was based on some educational theory (from the USA but adopted internationally) that assumed children learned grammar naturally, without any drilling in the rules. Generations of teachers and students were schooled under that system, and the effects are still felt today. My parents were teachers and using correct grammar was a big deal in our house, but I still learned many of the rules when I was teaching foreigners learning English.

4) And sometimes we just make mistakes. And nobody picks them up. And we keep starting sentences with 'And.' And nobody stops us. <g>

So I hope that explains why you won't always find correct grammar in a novel, and I'm sorry if the mistakes bug you. But really, we all have our grammar and word usage bugbears, don't we?

Grammar bugbears
Here are a couple of mine: Literally -- which people so often use incorrectly and unnecessarily. eg "I literally flew to fetch my camera."
No, you didn't, you don't have wings, and you didn't catch a plane, you just hurried. Flew is a metaphor. Saying literally contradicts the metaphor — it says you actually did fly.

Less and fewer is another bugbear of mine. "She has less books than John does."
It should be fewer books. Less is for an uncountable noun, a quantity, fewer if you can count it. So less sugar, fewer teaspoons of sugar. Less money, fewer dollars, because while you can count money, the term 'money' is an unknown quantity, therefore it is technically uncountable. Test yourself on your knowledge of less or fewer here. 

I could go on, but I won't. None of us is perfect (yes, is not are) and the important thing in my view is that we communicate the best, most effective way we can. Sometimes perfect grammar helps with that, sometimes it doesn't.

By the way, if you'd like to improve or test your grammar, there is a fun site here that gives examples and tests your knowledge. 

Do you notice grammatical errors in books? Do they interfere with your reading pleasure or not? What are your pet grammar hates?

Comments

[Janice]

Yes, I do notice them, and yes, they do yank me out of the book. They put my brain on tilt for a moment as I adjust my thinking from what the author actually said to what she (probably) meant to say.

The affect/effect one makes me the craziest. Now that psychology uses affect as a noun, it seems everybody's confused!

On the other hand, if something is clearly a typo or a brain fart, it's forgiven. We all do that.

Fundamental ignorance of usage and grammar on the part of an allegedly professional author is another thing, however. Now that editors are not necessarily part of the process of publication anymore, I see more and more of it, particularly in ebooks.

[Anne Gracie]

Thanks, Janice -- yes, affect and effect is a tricky one, and I see it mixed up often. I do think readers are likely to find more errors in independently published e-books, mainly because most self-published authors dont hire copy-editors, but rely on their friends and critique partners to do it.

But some writers I know have been reprimanded by readers for using British English spelling, the readers complaining of spelling mistakes which arent actually mistakes, but a different convention. Thats an interesting one, I think.

Someone just tweeted to me that it really bugs her when people say (or write)
I could care less when they really mean I couldnt care less. I doesnt make logical sense to me, either, but I suspect its one of those you say tomayto , I say tomahto kind of differences.

[Janice]

You and I must be the only people up at this hour!

One can take "I could care less" literally - maybe the speaker really could care less than she does :) But it's such a common expression - I've used it myself - that I don't put it in the class of a grammatical error.

It seems to me that if one is writing about British characters, it's not only okay to use Britishisms -- it's wrong not to. A Brit doesn't speak like an American, then or now, and to put Americanisms in their mouths is just wrong. After all, they're speaking recognizable English; it's not as if they're Italian or whatever, and we are reading in translation. One of my pet peeves about current day American regency historicals is that the characters sound way too American - and current day American at that!

If the author wants to use Americanisms in narrative, that's different, because that's the author's voice -- but not in dialog or character ruminations, please, unless the characters really are Americans :)

Or Australians either :)

[Anne Gracie]

Well, theres no rule that says we cant have a conversation between ourselves anyway.
I do agree with you that some writers of regency-era historicals sound quite American and often quite modern, too.
I suspect though that for some, its because they dont know that British English is any different, or they know, but dont know in what way its different.
Some, however, simply dont care and I know a lot of readers dont care, either. They know its a fantasy and just for fun, and they dont care if the characters sound like modern Americans. Some, I think, even prefer it — it makes them feel closer to the characters.

Again, its a balancing act — writers have to make decisions for their own books, and readers have to decide how much accuracy they want and how much inaccuracy they can tolerate.

[Shannon McEwan]

On the topic of different styles of English -

We have a beautifully illustrated set of Enid Blyton's Faraway Tree stories at home that has clearly been edited to reflect how society has changed since the books were first released. Names have been changed (Bessie to Beth, Fanny to Frannie, Dick to Rick, etc), and story details have been changed to accord with changes in social values (Dame Slap is now Dame Snap - and no corporal punishment takes place...). Other changes seem to serve no purpose save to dull the flavour of the stories (why does Sardine Ice Cream have to become Fish Ice Cream??? What happened to Humbugs and Boiled Sweets??) Meh.

AND YET! Despite all these changes, nothing appears to have been done to correct the (many) instances of dangling participles & misplaced modifiers.

Arrrrrrrgh!!!!

[Anne Gracie]

Shannon, that sounds a little disturbing. I know a lot of the Enid Blyton stories have been modified, and I suppose I can understand the change of names, when names like Fanny and Dick are no doubt snigger-worthy to kids of today, but I think changing Dame Slap to Dame Snap is taking political correctness a little too far. As for changing sardine ice-cream to fish ice-cream -- thats ridiculous. I remember imagining all the little sardine heads and tails sticking out of the ice-cream — or maybe thats what the illustration had. Im off to dig out my faraway tree books and check them — theyre not the old ones I had — I dont know what happened to them, alas. But I did buy some for me when I bought them for my nieces and nephews, and I dont know if I ever reread the stories. I hope theyre the original version.

[Anne Gracie]

I just checked and my copies of those books are all the original ones, thank goodness. I started reading them and smiling. The language is a bit stilted and old fashioned, but what surprised me was the amount of time those children spent unsupervised. One day they were given a huge picnic basket and told to go off and play for the day, and when, after various adventures they got home, their parents were still out, so the kids made their supper and went to bed.

I just picked up The Children of Cherry Tree Farm, which was another favourite of mine, and those kids, who were thin and pale after a series of illnesses, were given 6 months off school by the doctor, who prescribed a country lifestyle, so the parents put the kids on the train to auntie someone's in the country, and head off to America. As you do. Leaving the kids on the train by themselves. Changing values all right. The world was a different place.

[Maria M.]

As a reader I notice errors like typos but as long as the story and characters are compelling, I keep reading. I don't care much about grammar, comma slices, etc., but wrong use of words and a far too modern voice can be jarring. There are such egregious cases that this can be a factor in not finishing a novel.

I have only recently found errors like bad typos, missing words, etc. in several ebook versions of relatively expensive, traditionally published books, e.g. the latest Robert Muchamore YA, so these cannot be said to be a failing only of the self-pubbed.

It is ten times harder to find such errors in your own MS, I have found, than to notice them in someone else's.

[Donna]

I have no quibble with differences in regional or national styles and conventions, but the truly incorrect grammar mistakes that get me are 1) using the subjective pronoun as either the direct object or as an object of a preposition. And that mistake is insidiously creeping into all speech - I'm even hearing it from professionals on television. AAARRRGGGG!

And 2) misusing tricky verbs. I recently read, "She laid down on the bed..." And yes, I quit reading if that happens early into the story. I figure the plot and characters won't be any better than the grammar.

Great post!

[Sonya Heaney]

Grammar definitely varies from one country to another. I don’t think a lot of people realise that.

“1) Most people (and therefore characters) use a mix of correct and incorrect grammar when speaking, and, when thinking, their grammar is even less likely to be correct.”

I agree with this. If it’s a character speaking or thinking, they’re not always going to do it with perfect grammar. I take a bigger issue with those mistakes when it’s the author ‘talking’.
That said, I did just give a poor review to a book because the hero spoke like someone who needed a remedial English class or two!

Seeing ‘gotten’ in historical romances always stops me cold. It’s just not something that would have been said. Oh, and SNUCK!

[Elle]

This! Observe one minute of conversation between two friends at Starbucks and try to write it out on paper *exactly* as you hear it. Transcribe it to the word (which is almost impossible because people speak so quickly). Visually, that dialogue will probably be a mess on paper--stops, starts, digressions, fillers, asides. Multiply all of these things by a million if the conversation you're listening to is between teenagers.

Spoken language is an imprecise and flexible form of expression. It's not like the written word. We try our best to capture the pace of real speech on the page, but authors (and journalists) cast aside loads of fillers used in every day speech--'um, uh, kind of'--in an effort to make dialogue (or in the case of a newspaper article, source quotes) coherent for the reader.

That said, you also want it to sound real. Speech patterns denote character, personality, and education and different characters will have different ways of expressing their thoughts. Often dialogue will not be (to varying degrees) grammatically correct, because if it was, it wouldn't sound authentic.

That said, I'm less forgiving if I find the errors in the narration itself. But even that I can shrug aside. I know it bothers some people. I also *do* notice more errors in books printed in the last ten years than in fiction printed decades before that. I'm not sure why this is. Turnover time is faster? Or the people doing the editing are not as well trained? At any rate, it's an interesting topic!

[Jo Banks]

Incorrect grammar when reading usually passes me by,there will always be differences between English English and American - you know what they say about two countries divided by a common language. But idioms which are too modern sometimes stop me dead and my pet hate is the use of passed and past.For instance 'he past the plate'no he didn't he passed the plate !!
Elle there are probably more errors in more recent books because - definitely here in England both the author and the editor if they are of a certain age were never actually taught any grammar!Just expected to aquire a knowledge of same presumably from whatever they read.

[Kay]

It has been "**" years since I've been in an English/Grammar classroom. There are days I can barely remember where I left my keys let alone what possessive thingamajig goes where. The only time I usually notice something wrong with Grammar is when I'm not enjoying the book. When that happens everything jumps out at me, including historical accuracy.

[Alison]

I am an American and, long ago, I lived in England for 12 years. I was amazed at how poor the grammar was. I especially remember the misuse of me/my/I. I was naive and thought that as soon as I stepped on English soil, everyone would speak perfect English.

I have never heard the phrase 'visit with' to mean chat. To everyone I know here in the US, it means to physically go to see someone. Location and different generations may explain that.

It is sad that grammar education is not so important. My Brazilian daughter-in-law uses better grammar than my son. I remember having a teacher who, when anyone started a sentence with, "Well", everyone in the class had to raise their feet off the floor one inch. One day the principal walked in and we were all standing on our desks. (That was an inventive teacher).

No, grammatical 'errors' do not take away from my reading pleasure.

[Anne Gracie]

Thats so true, Maria — I do find it hard to see my own mistakes, mainly because I know the manuscript so well, I struggle to make myself read it properly when I read it back at the end. Whereas typos and spelling mistakes in particular will jump out at me from other books. And of course its not only e-books that are at fault — I actually think its a worse fault in a traditionally published book because then there have been (at least theoretically) several editors looking at it, as well as the writer. Thanks for joining in the conversation.

[Anne Gracie]

That said, I did just give a poor review to a book because the hero spoke like someone who needed a remedial English class or two! Seeing ‘gotten’ in historical romances always stops me cold.

The trouble with that, Sonya is that the copyeditor might have corrected it to gotten, as happens with my books all the time, which is why I try to avoid it altogether. In any case, gotten is an older form of English that has stuck in American English, whereas in the US and Australia, the language has moved on and that form is now frowned on and regarded as incorrect. So it *is* a regional issue.

Its a tricky old language.

[Keira Soleore]

This is a post designed to thrill any editor's heart. As editors, we have to edit very vigilantly, so as to sound educated with proper usage that does not tromp on the writer's voice, style of writing, and characterization. While typos and egregious errors should always be caught, laxity is encouraged in, say, sentence fragments, beginning sentences with "and," historical period-accurate phrasing that's "wrong" to modern ears, etc. It's a balancing act, which when done right is invisible and allows only the story to shine through.

[Anne Gracie]

LOL Elle — yes, I did many a transcript of this sort as an undergraduate. Actual conversation is so fragmented -- a mess, as you say. Writing dialogue is an art, and getting it to sound natural while being completely unrealistic is another balancing act writers must manage.

I do think editors have less time than they used to, but I also think the removal of grammar from school syllabi for several generations has had an effect, also. Ive seen the same obvious mistake used consistently through some books, and clearly not only the writer got it wrong, but the copyeditor didn;t know to correct it. Most people go with what they think sounds right but as weve all said here, bad grammar is all around us, and the nature of language is such that the more something is repeated the more natural and correct it sounds.

[Louis]

My pet peave is the misuse of "your" and "you're"

[Anne Gracie]

Jo, I think thats true — several generations now have never been taught the finer points of grammar, and it shows.
And the modern expressions also bug me -- a Regency earl saying As if! and such things.

Theres also a more subtle difference -- not understanding, for instance, that though a lord might be quite close in some ways to his valet, its most unlikely he would be confiding his innermost worries and thoughts to him. Not that its anything to do with grammar, of course.

[Anne Gracie]

Good point, Kay — if Im enjoying the book, Im oblivious of the little things. (Actually thats another one -- its oblivious of, not oblivious to )

[Anne Gracie]

Alison, I do think grammar is a matter of education and not nationality — no matter what country youre from. I think Eliza Doolittle is a prime example of that. It wasnt just accent that needed to be corrected it would be grammar as well. And I do think youre right, in that many people whose first language isnt English and who have learned it in a class room have better grammar than many native speakers. That can be a slight problem for some, however, as native speakers can sometimes perceive them to be overly formal or stand-offish.

Im surprised youve never heard the expression visit with -- Ive heard it said, seen it written in emails and certainly seen it written in books. Perhaps its a US regional variation thing and I havent picked up on it. Thanks so much for joining in the conversation.

[Anne Gracie]

Hi Keira -- yes indeed, as I said, editing is an art, and a good editor is a person to be prized. Clearly youve done well, as I saw you were listed as one of the editors for Sherry Thomass wonderful RITA finalist book this year. Congratulations.

[Susanne Bellamy]

Oh how this article resonated with me. I hated finding 'errors' in books and wondered about the editors' abilities until I worked with my first editor. The process opened my eyes to the differences between 'English' in Australia and in America. It was almost a physical ache to allow something which, to me, was 'wrong' but turned out to be 'right' in American English. These differences are part and parcel of cultural shifts and the constant evolution of our language in different parts of the world. Now, I attempt to appreciate rather than rail at the differences. But misuse of 'less/fewer'still has the power to rile me! ;)

[Felicity Hawkins]

Anne this post, or these posts, have taken me back to a time when I attended aone of your lectures at CAE and rather pretentiously criticised a piece of writing where a sentence started with the word 'and'. Thus starting a discussion on the difference in language appropriateness for romance novels.
Funnily I never notice that now. I find incorrect spelling more irritating now. And there's a lot of that on the kindle.

[Mary Jo Putney]

The thrills, the passion, the DRAMA of grammar!!!! There is nothing like a list of readers, writers, and editors to get hearts pounding over such things. *G* Fun. I'm with you on less and fewer, and I have my own little zoon of bugbears. You're so right, Anne, about having to find a balance between formality and what works for readers. It's a shifty line.

[Anne Gracie]

Susanne, yes, I thought it was nicely ironic this morning when I booked a taxi to have the automated voice ask me to confirm I was four people or less and was ready to leave -- I was so ready to argue the point -- with a machine? LOL
But who knows, that might eventually become the standard. Thanks for joining in the conversation.

[Anne Gracie]

I dont remember that particular discussion, Felicity, but ot does come up in most classes. We are well trained by teachers to use full and complete grammatical sentences, but in fiction youre aiming for something different -- an illusion of reality, and reality isnt perfect. Or grammatical. And sentences arent always complete. And after various teachers drilled me in You must never start a sentence with and or but or any other conjunction, I do it all the time.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[HJ]

Most of the points I thought if making have been well covered in the original post and the comments. I do agree that there is a difference between narrative and dialogue, and I don't expect perfect grammar in dialogue (or in all narrative, when it is close POV). I also acknowledge the difference in usage between different English-speaking countries. Even taking this into account, I do see more bad grammar in published books these days than I used to, and it does take me out of the book.

I do feel that authors should be aware of the differences between English and American usage when setting a book in the country which is not their home. This is particularly true of Americans writing historical novels set in England or Scotland. They have their characters "visit with" people, or "fix a plate" for someone. This is basic stuff which should be picked up by an editor. Maybe the authors / publishers should make a point of using editors whose first language is the language of the place where the book is set?

Some things are just wrong, wherever you are. "Lesser" and "fewer", and "literally" are bugbears of mine, too.

[Anne Gracie]

LOL --- grammar pedants unite! My father hated the fix a plate expression — he used to say, Why? Is it broken? This was the man who answered various requests of mine that started Can I . . .? with You can, but you may not.

I suspect its going to go the way movies and TV have gone, with a slow growing awareness that its important to get the small historical details —and the language—right. Remember that old version of Pride and Prejudice, (Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier) and other historical movies, where the costumes were completely wrong for the era, and the film makers didnt care — history was just a matter of donning some costume. These days film and TV series makers strive hard for historical accuracy all the way — um, she breaks to recall The Tudors but brushes that hastily aside -- ahem, well, many of them do, and I think its becoming more of an expectation that they do. That might also become the case with historicals. I certainly hope so, anyway.

[nancy]

The mistake that sets my teeth on edge is using I when ME is the correct pronoun. "He sent it to Charles and I" and other such uses are all too frequent in speech and print.
Many errors come from the auto correct function of some software program. The part that checks spelling on my email wants to make all plurals into possessives.
When reading Regency set stories, I am often too busy noticing errors of law, titles, and facts to notice grammar.
I am as guilty as others of being sloppy about the finer points of grammar and never have been certain whether a sentence needs a which or a that.

[S.K. Rizzolo]

I definitely fall into the grammar stickler camp, and I am haunted by the fear of errors in my manuscripts (grammatical or historical). Also, I'm an English teacher who believes in formal usage instruction--all those pesky rules you have been discussing!

The British English vs. American English discussion is interesting. I try to catch most of the glaring Americanisms--but they can be hard to spot. For instance, I think a British person might say "envisage" instead of "envision."

[Shannon]

Errors do stand out a lot more if I'm not involved in the story. And self-published books which are okay but not great are the prime offenders of dumping me out the story with a typo or a grammatical error.

Some authors have developed a way to emphasize a sentence that drives me crazy. "You. Are. Crazy." That's my pet peeve for the day.

Actually when you consider how many books are published, with how many millions of words, perhaps the more amazing thing is that errors tend to stand out because the vast majority of the writing/grammar is correct.

[Anne Gracie]

Oh, yes, Nancy, so many people get that one wrong, dont they, thinking it should always be my husband and I for instance. And yes, to My husband and I went to London, but not She gave a gift to my husband and I -- which is the teeth-gritting one. So easy to drop the other person and work out if it should be I or me, but so many fail to do it. That and which are a little more complicated. In my first few Berkley manuscripts I had a number of my whiches removed and replaced with that and found that US usage is a little different from Australian, (Americans also say different than, dont they?) and I think, from English, though Im not sure. This site is helpful: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/which-versus-that-0
Thanks for sharing your bugbears.

[Anne Gracie]

Yes, I think it behoves (or behooves if youre American) all of us to be a little more sensitive to the slightly differing uses and rules of English grammar in the English-speaking world. I think its a shame grammar instruction was abandoned in so many places. And youre right about glaring Americanisms (or other isms) being hard to spot -- I made a stupid mistake in one of my books — not to do with grammar, but a matter of research— and in the many apology letters I wrote to the readers who complained, I explained that Id never looked it up, because you dont tend to research the facts you think you know. And its the same with grammar or Americanisms or Australianisms or whatever — if you dont notice them, you wont correct them.

[Anne Gracie]

Some authors have developed a way to emphasize a sentence that drives me crazy. You. Are. Crazy. Thats my pet peeve for the day.
Oh dear, Shannon I might be guilty of that on occasion. Im not sure. Its a tricky thing. Writers are trying to emphasise the way thats said, and You are crazy, would be spoken quite differently from You. Are. Crazy. It adds a different emphasis, so I can see why people use it. I can also see that if its overused, it might be very annoying. Thanks for sharing your pet peeve with us.

[Anne Gracie]

Somebody sent me this in an email and I thought it was worth sharing:

"Btw, fab article about grammar in response to the reader who wrote in. (Lovely grammar there, heheh). I know there are some mistakes that wrench one violently out of a book, but sometimes readers can be waaaaaay too pedantic. As if they're searching madly for anything to pounce on. I mean for anything upon which to pounce. "

[Anne Gracie]

The DRAMA of grammar indeed, Mary Jo. And yes, if gets some people all fired up and others yawning. Vive le differance. (probably badly spelled French, but the intention is good)

[MaeLou]

Wonderful discussion. I discovered early on in creative writing classes (from the feedback of bleeding red ink throughout my M/S), that I did not learn proper grammar usage as a child, and no amount of education could pound it into me.

In the '50s we spent years diagramming sentences on chalk boards during English class and I devoured every book in our lending library. I was exposed to correct sentence structure and grammar. So why didn't that exposure drill proper grammar into my bones and head? Because nobody talked that way in the prairie state where I grew up, not even those teaching the English classes.

Grammatical immersion wins every time, at least in my opinion. The Norse influence on sentence structure alone confuses proper grammar right out of me, not to mention run-on sentences and stories that meander around cornfields and shelter-belts before coming to the point.

Do I have a point? Just that I believe family, community and regional influences are overwhelming to any book learning when English is not the first language in a geographical area. I'm talking about grandparents and great-grandparents influence on future generations speaking style.

As if I had problems before? I retired to a small town in Hawaii where proper English is a second language. Pidgin is hilarious to hear, fun to learn and use, cuts to the point and crosses all language barriers. You loosen up or leave right quick, yeah?

I vote for celebration of regional styles in books. Even at the expense of proper grammar. Controversial? You betcha!

[Maureen]

Wonderful discussion and I'm so pleased that other people cannot tolerate 'gotten' in a supposedly English setting: it's been a particular bugbear of mine for years. There are two other oddities I've noticed in American English. One is the tendency to use 'bring' where English & Australians would use 'take': i.e. "I'll bring you to see him...". This is surprisingly common and now I've pointed it out, you'll see it everywhere! The other oddity is the verb 'to write' - Americans say "I will write your aunt" where UK/Aus would say "I will write to your aunt". Still, if a story is gripping, these are minor matters.

[[email protected]]

I so often find myself diverted to "Hmm, I would have said it ..." that it doesn't even interrupt my reading flow any more! I gave up being the grammar police several years ago, realizing that language is really what "we" decide it is. Dialogue tends to be messy in real life, why not in novels?

That said, I don't hold "historical romances set in the Regency" to the same standards as traditional Regencies. For the latter, the more olde British-sounding the better. But even for the former, I object to a 19th-century heroine spitting out "God damn it!" Even "Oh, Zeus" is better than that. (I've seen both.)

And* any author of historicals gets extra points from me for using "Hullo" or "Hallo," instead of the later "Hello." It's those bits of authenticity (see earlier discussion of "got" vs. "gotten") that get us into the stories.

[* Deliberate! I like And ... or But ..., but not And, ... or But, ...]

Just don't get me started on OCR errors in so many scanned reissues-to-ebook though. Grrrr! That, I find intolerable. If Amazon allowed open editing, as Wikipedia does, my hand would be the first to go up.

[Anne Gracie]

Yes, Louis, it happens so often. And apostrophes end up placed in the wrong places as well.

[Anne Gracie]

MaeLou — fabulous comment. I love regional variations of English and different accents and evocative local expressions. English is a gloriously rich stew, full of borrowed and adopted and often twisted words and phrases from other languages in a process that's been going on for centuries, and won't stop because of a grammar book.

And having taught English as a second language in high schools, I know from experience that kids grow up learning several kinds of English — school English and home English. It was the same with kids whose parents spoke other languages at home — the Italian background kids (for instance) often spoke a dialect at home that was frowned on in class, so they had two kinds of English and two kinds of Italian to master. But I think that's all to the good.

But mostly the variations are in spoken language. With written language, except in dialogue, or written in the point-of-view of a character who thinks in the local dialect, English is more standard, and the rules of grammar become important. Otherwise, outside that small local area, the communication becomes more difficult. More standardized forms of English were developed in the first place when Henry the 8th (I think) decided that government communications would be written in English instead of Latin — and when confusion arose from various spellings and expressions, standardization and rules were developed to aid efficient communication.

It's a fascinating subject.

[Anne Gracie]

Yes, Maureen, to one set of people "I'll write your aunt" means I'll write a letter , to another it means you'll write the words 'your aunt.'

I don't think these variations will ever disappear from books, because for each writer, either gotten is correct grammar, or it's incorrect grammar — we both think we're the correct ones, and don't want to change. Nobody, no matter what side of the Atlantic or Pacific they live, wants to write something they feel very strongly is wrong.

I think the solution is to understand the variations and be tolerant.

[Anne Gracie]

"language is really what "we" decide it is."
That's so true, Mary.

I also think we'll tolerate a lot more incorrect grammar in dialogue. My character Daisy was a foundling who grew up rough, in central London and her dialogue reflects that — of course. It wouldn't sound right if she spoke like a grammar book.

On 'hello', I try not to use it at all. It's my understanding that hulooo was more a hunting field call, or an expression of surprise, rather than a greeting, and 'hello' (or hullo or hallo) came in after the Regency period and became more standard with the telephone. I'm not sure, but to err on the right side I usually have my characters use a different greeting, something like how do you do, or something like that.