Struggling Writer Needs Help.

Looks like Flopsby's been speaking with the other half. LOL.

Write for yourself sweets, that's the best way to do it. When I first started writing I listened to and followed every rule there was and what did I get...boring crap. Now I wirte with my husband and we try to make it as real as possible. Might not always be perfect but hey ho, writing is not about that.

My best advise? Write what you love and love what you write.

Caleb, sighing off for the night......

George Carlin wrote the following:


We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and there would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
Neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England .

We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
We find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,
And a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write, but fingers don't fing,
Grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend?
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them,
What do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English
Should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.

In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship...
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
While a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
In which your house can burn up as it burns down,
In which you fill in a form by filling it out,
And in which an alarm goes off by going on.

And in closing...........

If Father is Pop,
How come Mother's not Mop?


For all the experts in the English language, could you please explain his questions. please and thank you.

canadianspankee
To us non-native speakers (non-native writers?) none of this comes as a surprise — it is what we have to struggle with every day. Who decided to give world supremacy to the most illogical language in existence? Esperanto, anyone — or Latin?

I fear my mother tongue is coming under attack and I must try to mount some sort of defence even though I am ill-equipped to do so. What the highly esteemed writers have said in previous replies is true, English is illogical and full of irregularities, crazy and nonsensical at times so why is it the dominant language it is? English is a mongrel language which contain elements of German, Latin, French, Old Norse, Hindi as well as African amongst others. English has a huge vocabulary and is the chosen language for many publications that are distributed throughout the world, it makes good sense with so many people speaking English either as a first or second language. It is a living language that assimilates and evolves and in doing so is enriched and vibrant and it is the language of some of the world`s most influential and beautiful literature. I, for one, am more than happy to put up with it`s foibles and shortcomings and take it as it is, warts and all. I am aware this is a weak defence and know there are writers on this site who could make a much better fist of it than I but I felt I had to try.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Think of the synonyms we have for 'good': nice, wonderful, fantastic, superb, excellent, marvellous, to name but a few. And for 'bad': dreadful, abhorrent, appalling, disgraceful, disgusting, horrible, atrocious etc.

Remember too that each of these has its own connotations, each a little different from all the others. I for one don't want to be limited to the Orwellian 'good, plus-good, double plus-good, ungood, plus ungood, and double plus ungood'. Yes, it might make things simpler, but the language would be impoverished, lose its beauty and variety, and become stagnant. Long live English!