Writings and Styleguides

I've been having fun coming up with a styleguide for my stories.

For example, I've never liked "gray" and have always used "grey". Also "doughnut" not "donut", and "whisp" not "wisp". I'm of the opinion that anything that feels like a compound word in my head, can be (see "styleguide" above). Also "bookbag", "bookspine", "and "dormroom". I'm also intrigued by the word "folx". I've long liked the word "folk" as gender neutral, but "folx" feels more inclusive to me.

And yet, I can't help the nagging sensation that some of these are technically incorrect. As though language dictates to us rather than the other way around. I am firmly of the thought that language is a tool we are free to shape into whatever use we see fit. And yet, my training pushes me down Correct vs. Incorrect.

To get around this mental hiccough, I created a styleguide for my writing projects. Now, whenever I make a vocabulary decision that is technically incorrect (or even just feels incorrect), I can put it in the styleguide and make it correct. I may well go mad with power.

I'm not very recognized (especially around these parts), but I believe you have to understand two concepts: the readership has to be able to understand what you are saying, thus you should use "the coin of the realm." That said, and not a lot might agree with this statement, what is conversationally said in quotes, is fair game to "shape as you see fit."

Just remember that if you make dialogue so stylistic that readers can't read and understand it, then they likely won't continue reading it. In other words, you are at the mercy of the masses. I understood most references you used (as those are either widely used elsewhere, or not very stylized) until you got up to "folx." I thought you were trying to stylize the word "fox," or trying a new fla.

That said, I've read books by authors who used outdated and dead languages in their stories, but they included an appendix at the beginning of a book or chapter, with relevant references. That made it harder to read, but I didn't feel like the author was trying to lourd incomprehensible words over their readers.

Just my 2￠

I'm VERY against language prescriptivism - as long as what's being said can be understood, go wild, laws of grammar be damned! I'm sometimes inconsistent in my own writing because I'm a lazy sod and haven't established my own styleguide yet. I much prefer a piece of writing with sometimes inconsistent grammar and words which may not be technically 'correct' than one which goes out of its way to be Completely Perfect Always. Too many semicolons and I start noticing them in a bad way

There are two factors in this that jump out to me. The first is the voice of the narrator. Even when the narrator isn't a character, the unseen narrator can have character, and once the reader adapts to that, there's a certain freedom and liberty the author has within a style.

The other factor is immersion. Whenever the writing calls attention to itself, the reader will pop out of the bubble of the world of the story and back into the real world, noticing the writing. Every story, whether they play it totally straight or add in cheeky lines that address the reader directly, has to deal with this balance.

Whenever we partake in stylistic indulgences, it's always a question of whether it serves us, the reader or the story. It can serve all, some or none of the above, but as a matter of importance, I think comfort goes to story first, reader second, writer last.

Novelty vs necessity.

Not trying to abscond the purpose of the thread, but it's related. The rest of the world looks at the US (more or less) as the idiots who can't learn a second language. That has to deal with novelty verses necessity.

In the rest of the world, if you travel 500, or even 1,000 miles in any direction, you've probably traveled through one or more countries, and probably countries that don't speak the same language. Neighboring countries speaking different languages, means people frequently crossing borders looking for work, or to purchase foreign products; creates a necessity to learn a scattering of foreign words, if not develop a fuller understanding of the foreign language. Populations in other neighboring countries are likely equal to your own, so the onus again is to adapt. Resistance is futile.

In the US, if you travel 500 or even 1,000 miles, you're either still in the US, in the ocean, in Canada (which largely speaks english), or in Mexico, which shares about 10% of our border and doesn't have a lot of (legal) visitors crossing our border, thus the onus to learn a second language is a novelty.
Personally, I learned how to speak Castilian Spanish in 7th & 8th grade, and got a perfect score in both years. I've scarcely used the language since. Today, I couldn't make a sentence in that language if my life depended on it.

How this relates to the topic.
A few years ago, there was a fellow writer who asked me to beta-read for them. What I saw was name drop this, French word this, Japanese word that, pop-culture reference here and there. Most of which I didn't know. Okay, yes, I'm old. Honestly, I didn't understand a lick of it. I was forced to go to google translate, and urban dictionary to figure out what the writer was trying to say. In-sentence use didn't help as it was either contradictory, or completely wrong, to what I suspected the meaning to be.

While I'll quibble on using foreign phrases as being somewhat acceptable, taking a chance with slang is just that, taking a chance. Slang is even more fluidic than foreign language and grammar itself. Meanings change overnight, and can change not only to it's polar opposite, but to something completely tangential.
In other words, a story you write with slang of today, might be indecipherable (or worse; inciting) in five years.

That said, I'm not seeking to squash creativity. I'm just trying to suggest moderation. My point is; choose your readership, and cater to them by not talking over their heads.

In deference to transmanspankee, I readily admit to habitually overuse semicolons (sometimes, even correctly) because people seem so scared to use them nowadays.
This is me ending the blah-blah-blah.

Styles vary, that's creativity. If you want a guide to grammar, spelling and punctuation, buy a copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage.

The biggest problem is that a 'taught' second language is very different from how it is actually spoken by its speakers. The French spoken across France is very different to what gets taught outside of France, due to the excessive local use of accents, patois, contractions and slang.

The year after I graduated with French as my subsidiary subject, I spent a very enjoyable year in the Auvergne region in central France teaching English at a university there. I had no problems conversing with my university colleagues, but in the bars, shops and restaurants it took me a good couple of months to understand easily what was being said. This was not only because of the distinct regional accent, but also because of the prolific use of slang words and phrases. I imagine that a Frenchman who came to England with a good command of English would have similar problems in the English regions!