Does That Make Sense?

In any language, whether spoken or written, there exists a structured syntax, a set of grammar rules to regulate sentence construction. Without such organization, language would be ineffectual, right? Random words gestured haphazardly make no sense.

Even made-up languages maintain structure. Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky of Through the Looking Glass is sheer nonsense. Or is it?

‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

The poem’s theme may not be immediately evident, but it has rhythm and rhyme and structure and some sort of imagery of which main character Alice herself says, “Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas—only I don’t know exactly what they are!”

What about languages long since outdated and archaic? Take this piece of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales in Middle English, for example:

But ye that holden this tale a folye,
As of a fox, or of a cok and hen,
Taketh the moralitee, goode men.
For Seint Paul seith that al that written is,
To our doctrine it is y-write, y-wis.
Taketh the fruyt, and lat the chaf be stille.

Indeed a message can be discerned without the benefit of a translator. Well-written material with proper structure—grammar, syntax, punctuation, formatting—can leave quite an impact on the reader. It is effective communication that can leave quite an impression, even when the words are not completely understood.

So learn the language in which you write. Know its rules and know how to break them correctly. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV), because “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33) and neither should you be.

Tweet

Today's Quick Tip

A member of my writers' group asked a great question. Sheila is working on a series of articles and wants them to have a certain tone. She asked, "How do I keep it casual and conversational without sounding uneducated?"

My friend will have to walk a fine line here, because she needs to present her material in a way her readers will readily accept, but she doesn't want to offend anyone by writing at a level that belittles them. She'd also like a little humor thrown into the mix.

Sheila can accomplish her goal by following the advice of an old college professor of mine. He said it's ok to break the rules [of grammar] as long as you know the rules you're breaking. When you break a grammar rule intentionally, and consistently break the same rule throughout the piece, it makes sense. The writing, then, is not full of mistakes. Rather, it flows beautifully and is connected, because you know what you're doing.

Sheila will not appear uneducated by mixing it up a bit. On the contrary, if her writing is cohesive, she will be very effective.