In many ways, this chapter aims to discuss the importance of the ‘nitty gritty’ in terms of a given piece’s style. The author points out in this passage that ‘style’ essentially has everything to do with the individual’s perception of a piece and likely nothing to do, consciously, with the way it was written, and the grammar used. The reader may be influenced by the syntax, but ultimately the ‘style’ given to the piece is determined within the mind of the reader. The author explains that a more accurate way of assessing the style is through the grammatical differences in syntax that make an impression on the reader. The author asserts that it is not the overall feeling that gives a piece its style, but the structure and usage. In the following chapter, BE, VI, VL, and VT verbs are introduced to the reader. As a lens through which analysis can be made, the central kernel sentence is allotted different senses that distinguish it from the others, adding to an author or passages ‘style’. Even this annotation, is being written in a way that, hopefully, reflects the core themes of the passages. The structure of these sentences together creates a style which could be classified as perhaps, scholarly, academic, or professional. It is not, however, the way in which I type the words or even the words I’ve chosen, but the structure with which I put them together. The BE verb in of itself gives the two previous sentences a sense of certainty that a perception of a work cannot give alone. It is the grammar and the syntax which create the illusion of style.

Woolf’s style consists of long flowing phrases, often prepositional or adjectival, attached by commas or conjunctions. The opening sentence is begun with a two-place transitive (vc) verb then a prepositional phrase, two past participial phrases, another prepositional phrase, a ‘be’ verb, and two connected prepositional phrases. The overall effect of this mode of writing is to cause the cadence to become garbled, like a stream of consciousness. The thoughts are nearly disjointed, yet occasionally, interrelated (the prepositional phrases acting as adverbs or adjectives) and seem to come quickly due to the lack of a period. The reader feels as if they are inside the boy’s head, thinking the thoughts in real time. Woolf’s style achieves a youthful and energetic tone through these grammatical structures.

Hemingway’s style consists of mostly passive phrases as well as past participle phrases. The entire paragraph is in the past tense. This opening sentence is composed of a past tense ‘be’ verb sentence with a following prepositional phrase acting as an adverb and a conjunction connecting the primary part of the thought to a past participle verb phrase with an adjective clause. This opening sentence is phrased such that the tone of the opening lines gives the same effect as the story being told, that the content is old and in the past tense like the man, seemingly in the ‘past tense’ himself. The prepositional phrases add an air of repetitiveness to the description akin to the way the man himself goes out on the sea day after day without success. The use of passive sentences allows Hemingway to achieve a shift so that the reader understands that it is nature acting on the people and not the people acting on nature, foreshadowing the old man’s catch and struggle with the fish.

This phrase pairs two verb phrases, linked together with punctuation. It usually follows that the two phrases are interrelated in some manner, perhaps one qualifying the other. These phrases, however, are paired, and yet seem to only relate in the negative connotation of both the verbs. The phrases themselves are not interrelated and seems to dissociate from one another despite their connection within the larger phrase. This dissonance causes the line and those around it to become warped and strange, adding to the overall tone of the song and its theme.

The combination of grammar structures, a imperative sentence followed by a prepositional phrase adjective, give this moment an eerie and unnerving tone. The speaker seems to command the listener to follow their directions, then qualifying it in a way that describes and predicts the listeners behavior upon following the directions. While the speaker suggests dream fears and monsters, this unnerving structure highlights the potential for the audience to fear not only the monsters but the speaker themselves.

“the subway Bible poster said” (Dart-det, N:adj, PropN:adj, VT-MV:past)

The use of a transitive verb suggests that there should be a direct object that receives the action of the verb, for example the poster would be saying something, perhaps “the phrase”. In this case, however, the verb doesn’t do anything to anyone or anything despite its basic principle as a transitive verb. The lack of a direct object suggests that the receptive phrase either doesn’t exists or is more abstract than can be reported. The following phrases about the Lord could potentially function or stand in for the direct object, as if to say that the poster is like scripture and like the Lord’s meaning itself, not simply advertising it. Secondarily, the lacking direct object could point to the lacking meaning in the Bible’s phrases and the poster’s message in the speaker’s opinion. The phrase isn’t finished because there isn’t a message, or the speaker doesn’t feel there is one worthy of mention. In just this one phrase, the verb created increased and deeper meaning for the poem.

The author in this article delves into the intricacies of identity and justice through the capitalization (or not) of the ‘B’ in ‘black’. The article shifts from documentation of the word itself to consideration about the social and grammatical implications of this change. Mainly, there is debate surrounding the power given to the word if it is capitalized as well as the change grammatically from an adjective, describing a people, to a noun, classifying them.

The grammatical change itself is a huge deal, it would change (as stated above) that which describes to that which groups together. Inherently the word becomes the subject of a sentence and not just qualifying the subject. Likewise, what does it mean grammatically, if you use it both ways, as in: “The black Blacks”? Does thing change spark movements for other adjectives to be capitalized as well? What about ‘white’ vs ‘White’? Overall, making this change would require making the left-over use obsolete to avoid confusion as well as reverting to ways now deemed unfit or unjust.

This article centers on the general concern for pronouns, in the effort to be inclusive and politically correct, being in direct contrast with traditional grammar rules and usages. The author cleverly utilizes parts of the book “What’s your pronoun?” to illustrate the idiocies of arguing for traditional grammar when the use of ‘you’ has been essentially incorrect for years. The author of both the article and referenced book seem to suggest that while grammar is a concern, the general public is prone to usage changes that shape the way we speak and that the inevitable will occur with pronouns and the use of the non-gendered ‘they’.

Interestingly enough, this debate extends into other languages spoken around the world as well as in the US. The Hispanic population in the US has, in particular, embraced the differences surrounding the labels ‘Latino’, ‘Latina’ and now, ‘Latinx’ in the effort to be more gender inclusive. The language itself, however, is gendered on principle (every word being either male or female) and thus, like here in the US with English, these changes pose some interesting challenges for the future of grammar.

This article, written objectively to report on the legal debate surrounding the oxford comma, seems to present a system which confuses itself over small tweaks in grammar usage and attempts to fix the issue with more ambiguity. The article dictates that the legislators in charge of changing and clarifying said laws, opted to replace the commas with semi-colons. While the debate on the oxford comma often spawns from confusion, the same can be said equally of the semi-colon, and so in essence the problem, it seems, will continue to perpetuate itself. It seems that the author of the article seems to also disapprove of this change, pointing out the shortcoming of the semicolon as well. The lawyers and government employees involved in changing the formatting, balked at the disagreements surrounding the oxford comma, which harkens back to the original issue with punctuation.

How can legislators aim for clarity by avoiding the punctuation at hand and then actively replace it with another controversial part of grammar? It’s only a matter of time until another party confuses the intent of the law and brings another case to court which causes grammatical dispute to be the forefront of national news once again.

How peculiar, that early usage of written word cared very little for the rules we are now taught in schools from a very young age. Belief that authors simply placed punctuation on whim alone is hard to grasp living in the 21st century, and yet, I would be lying if I said I didn’t often ignore the rules of punctuation while writing and place commas where I see fit. I must note, however, that I always return to the piece and apply the rules I’ve been taught to the best of my ability.

The author’s key point, that rules in moderation or open to ‘elasticity’ are what allow for creativity, effectively rationalizing that vehement denial of a certain point is futile and unproductive, easily straddles party lines and is effective in not alienating either side. I couldn’t help but notice that throughout the piece the author used varying degrees of semicolons, the punctuation in question, while simultaneously chronicling its many downfalls. Reading between the lines seems to suggest that the semicolon can be broken into submission if the author is careful and follows grammarian rules. Writing one thing while saying another seems to cleverly be the point and format of this piece.