Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#6

ArDeeBurger Wrote: You cannot be AMONG a singular entity. The word AMONG implies there is a group, and something is AMONG them.

If you intend to go with the singular noun SKY, then whatever there is in the SKY is WITHIN the SKY, as the word WITHIN implies a singular entity. 

So your choices are AMONG THE SKIES or WITHIN THE SKY. 😁

Yeah I know the rules surrounding among. I'm asking if it's okay to break the rule for the sake of the title. A character, or the narrator, will typically say "among the sky" as opposed to skies.  peolove

Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#8
Yes it does matter. Among infers being part of a group, which would be a plural in many cases. However the sky might be considered a thing, so alternately, "Into the Sky" or  plural, as in multiple views or skies, as in "The Skies of Darkover" so forth.  You need the referent to define the case. You can't mix an  obvious plural with a obvious singular referent. , such as in "Walk like a men'" when you mean "They walk like Men" or "I walk like a man"

Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#9

FAHyatt Wrote: Yes it does matter. Among infers being part of a group, which would be a plural in many cases. However the sky might be considered a thing, so alternately, "Into the Sky" or  plural, as in multiple views or skies, as in "The Skies of Darkover" so forth.  You need the referent to define the case. You can't mix an  obvious plural with a obvious singular referent. , such as in "Walk like a men'" when you mean "They walk like Men" or "I walk like a man"

What if you can, though?  PeoReading


Among the Sleep seems to break this rule too. It just sounds badass.

And I think it may not matter after all since its the people in the story that refer to the sky like this. Somewhat similar to Pet Sematary. 

Hm  peoconfused

Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#10

ArthurScott Wrote: Among the Sleep seems to break this rule too. It just sounds badass.

The noun form of the word SLEEP is not in the same classification of nouns as the word SKY. SKY is a concrete noun -- something that can be observed with our senses.  SLEEP is an abstract noun -- a quality or state of being. Many abstract nouns have no plural form, such as PEACE and COURAGE and INFORMATION -- and of course, SLEEP. 

A good writer realizes that using an abstract noun on its own can cause confusion in their readers, as one person's defintition of an abstarct noun will often differ from another. A reference word or phrase of some sort ought to be used to define the abstract noun, thus avoidng confusion. 

For example, saying AMONG THE SLEEP OF THE DAMNED is proper English, as it implies the way a certain group of people sleep. However, AMONG THE SLEEP OF A CHILD would be an improper use of the word AMONG, as in this instance SLEEP refers to the act of an individual. 

So you see, in the situation of SLEEP versus SKY, it's the difference between an abstract and a concrete noun. We could make further references to things such as countable and uncountable nouns, but we'll leave that for another day. 😁

Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#11

ArDeeBurger Wrote:
ArthurScott Wrote: Among the Sleep seems to break this rule too. It just sounds badass.

The noun form of the word SLEEP is not in the same classification of nouns as the word SKY. SKY is a concrete noun -- something that can be observed with our senses.  SLEEP is an abstract noun -- a quality or state of being. Many abstract nouns have no plural form, such as PEACE and COURAGE and INFORMATION -- and of course, SLEEP. 

A good writer realizes that using an abstract noun on its own can cause confusion in their readers, as one person's defintition of an abstarct noun will often differ from another. A reference word or phrase of some sort ought to be used to define the abstract noun, thus avoidng confusion. 

For example, saying AMONG THE SLEEP OF THE DAMNED is proper English, as it implies the way a certain group of people sleep. However, AMONG THE SLEEP OF A CHILD would be an improper use of the word AMONG, as in this instance SLEEP refers to the act of an individual. 

So you see, in the situation of SLEEP versus SKY, it's the difference between an abstract and a concrete noun. We could make further references to things such as countable and uncountable nouns, but we'll leave that for another day. 😁

Oh all right. For now I'll keep it as sky because I don't have the resources to change the cover. But I'll see if people care about it in the future. It sounds cool tho, idk why XD

Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#13


ArthurScott Wrote: The title of my sci-fi book is Among(st) The Sky as opposed to Among(st) The Skies.

(For those who don't know: among typically precedes collective or plural nouns)

Does that matter at all?

Thank you in advance.


"Among is the older version of the word, tracing its roots back to Old English. Amongst appeared in Middle English. During this period, the English language added sounds to some words to form adverbs. In modern English, we still have some words like that, such as once, always, and unawares. Amongst, whilst, whence, and amidst may sound dated to some, but they’re still part of the language.


Though the meaning of among and amongst is the same, the frequency of use is not. Among is much more popular than amongst. The Oxford English Corpus counts about 10,000 mentions of amongst in American writing. However, among appears over 300,000 times. The difference is less extreme in British English and other international English dialects, but among is always more common."


Source:  https://www.grammarly.com/blog/amongst-among/

I would say you are good with either!



Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#14

MickG Wrote:
ArthurScott Wrote: The title of my sci-fi book is Among(st) The Sky as opposed to Among(st) The Skies.

(For those who don't know: among typically precedes collective or plural nouns)

Does that matter at all?

Thank you in advance.


"Among is the older version of the word, tracing its roots back to Old English. Amongst appeared in Middle English. During this period, the English language added sounds to some words to form adverbs. In modern English, we still have some words like that, such as once, always, and unawares. Amongst, whilst, whence, and amidst may sound dated to some, but they’re still part of the language.


Though the meaning of among and amongst is the same, the frequency of use is not. Among is much more popular than amongst. The Oxford English Corpus counts about 10,000 mentions of amongst in American writing. However, among appears over 300,000 times. The difference is less extreme in British English and other international English dialects, but among is always more common."


Source:  https://www.grammarly.com/blog/amongst-among/

I would say you are good with either!

Thanks for the help!  peolove

Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#16

ArthurScott Wrote: A character, or the narrator, will typically say "among the sky" as opposed to skies.

This is what gives you wriggle room. If there is a good reason they use questionable grammar in this idiom and the reason is consistent, it can work. I use a similar thing with one of my idioms, "weeping skies" (referring to a magical storm called the Tears of Dealth. The sky wept, essentially). Some of the characters will write "weeping skys" or "weeping sky's" because 1) it's set in a 16th-century Elizabethan equivalent fantasy world, so literacy rates were low and grammar rules weren't consistently applied or understood, and 2) some people use a similar idiom "the sky's tears" so the two are frequently confused and mashed together.


The only issue is, it may turn off a few potential readers who read it and worry about the grammar of your book. Here on RR, I don't think it'll be as much a problem (especially if you're aiming at a younger audience) as people aren't as worried about grammatical accuracy. However, native/ advance English speakers may think it sounds a little clunky compared to "amongst the skies" because they may unconsciously realise the grammar is a bit off.

Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#17

JenifryConan Wrote: it's set in a 15th-century Elizabethan equivalent fantasy world

Ahm... Just a little help here for your story, if you like. A few things, actually. 


Elizabethan Times started in the late 16th century, around 1560 or so. -- it is thought of as the start of Modern English, called so because Queen Elizabeth standardized the English language during her reign into the spellings and pronunciations that we use today. 

The time prior to that -- from the 12th century through the 15th century -- is referred to as Middle English, and prior to that, Old English. 

Queen Elizabeth sought to standardize the English language mainly because the invention of the printing press caused an explosion in both published texts and in the ability to read. Prior to Elizabethan Times, people spelled words pretty much any way they wanted, since stuff was never published. As such, acceptable spellings of the word SKY back then were SKI SKE SKIE and SKYE.

Queen Elizabeth chose SKY as the Modern English spelling, which is the era we still live in today. Curious though, for some reason the spelling SKIE was kept for when certain suffixes were to be added, such as SKIED and SKIES. 

Those crazy Elizabethans. They were a such pack a pips!  😸 

Re: Title Question (Grammar-Related)

#20

ArDeeBurger Wrote: Ahm... Just a little help here for your story, if you like. A few things, actually
...
Queen Elizabeth sought to standardize the English language mainly because the invention of the printing press caused an explosion in both published texts and in the ability to read. Prior to Elizabethan Times, people spelled words pretty much any way they wanted, since stuff was never published. As such, acceptable spellings of the word SKY back then were SKI SKE SKIE and SKYE

Thanks for the insight. It's not a 1500's cut out and therefore won't follow that period word for word due to a different political/ social landscape. It's set 500 years after a local neer-apocalypse of a magical nature, so they're more concerned with the magical forest trying to eat anything not surrounded by a forty-foot wall than the standardisation of language. I've been using it as a template to borrow from rather than a framework, but it's still been incredibly interesting to research. I personally love that they added vowels wherever they damn well pleased (spelling egg as egge being an example I saw that I've come to adore).


(The 15 was a typo on my part. New keyboard, different sized keys; you know how it goes. Sorry for the confusion!)