--Nat
Here's another one:
Avoid passive sentences. Make your verbs active! Don't be afraid to let the subject of your sentence take action, even if in reality (whatever that is) it's an inert object.
Example: Instead of "That book was blowing my mind," try "That book blew my mind!"
Re:Active Sentences
vsergu on 2002-09-26T00:39:16
"Was blowing" is active. You're thinking of "My mind was blown by that book."Re:Active Sentences
Theory on 2002-09-26T01:44:32
Good catch!
David
Re:Active Sentences
pdcawley on 2002-09-26T07:53:57
But always to be remembering that the passive voice has its place.
Admittedly, that place is usually somewhere else...
Re:I think I got at least one out of four
gnat on 2002-09-26T03:22:17
Writing the Cookbook was English Bootcamp for me with Tom. I still remember the day when I finally got that vs which. It was like the day when I got contact lenses--that which had been blurry was now clear. (ho ho, I am so funny)--Nat
Re:I think I got at least one out of four
petdance on 2002-09-26T15:47:07
Writing with brian in The Perl Review is a bootcamp for me as far as passive sentences.Now, passive sentences are easily seen by me as being wrong. They are edited quickly.
Re:I think I got at least one out of four
geoff on 2002-09-26T11:56:53
my 10th grade english teacher put its/it's in a context that I haven't forgotten since:
showing the missing letter in the contraction is (apparently) more important than showing possession.Linguistic Tricks
Allison on 2002-09-26T15:33:26
As a further mnemonic, "hers" and "his" aren't "her's" and "he's" (or "him's") either.The litmus test: mentally try the sentence with "it is" instead. If it works (it'll stick out like a sore thumb if it's wrong), you want "it's".
I detest the word "utilize" in nearly all situations. I nearly always prefer "method" to "methodology", unless you're talking about studying methods. I also use too many adverbs. Long sentences usually suck.
That'll do -- for about five minutes. GRR!
Re:Is this the thread where editors complain?
gnat on 2002-09-26T03:25:39
use v utilize is one of mine, too. In fact, you're guaranteed to get my asshole crawling up my spine to garrotte my brain if you write was utilized by. Yay, clumsy construction and a bullshit word!Editing has a lot of aspects, but the one I'm doing a lot of now is rearranging words and sentences so that the point can come through. I'm always amazed at how easy it is to hide the purpose of a paragraph through clunky construction.
--Nat
/s
Re:apples and oranges
gnat on 2002-09-26T03:12:22
Almost every "rule" is violated in spoken language (and anyway, who can hear the difference between "its" and "it's"?:-). That's okay for most people (less okay for professional orators such as politicians, not that I'm thinking of a particular jackass with his finger on the nukular button). In case it wasn't clear, I was talking about writing that I have to edit for publication.
When you're writing, you have only the words to communicate with. And printed words are a very clumsy way to communicate (think of the conversions involved: thoughts to words in head, words in head to words on page, words on page to words in head, words in head back to thoughts--hopefully the same thoughts the writer had!). Rules of subject/verb agreement, tense, even punctuation, help us make sense of the written word. Just as Perl tries to make sense of crackheaded code but will often fail, people can try to make sense of crackheaded writing but will often fail.
--Nat
Re:apples and oranges
educated_foo on 2002-09-26T04:32:42
I guess I don't understand mistaking its for it's, because once you unpack it, the mistake's right there -- "X rain" is either "it is rain" (it's) or "the rain belonging to it" (its). So while it may be easy to misspell, there's a straightforward way to bring language intuitions to bear on the problem. Plus, I thought it was "good style" to avoid contractions in formal writing. Maybe this is why...On the other hand, if asked whether I should say "the book which I like" or "the book that I like", it's darned hard to tell, and I don't know of a similar "unpacking" procedure to make things clear (if you know of one, please let us know!). I'd probably pick "that", because I gather that "which" is almost always wrong, so the odds are better that way. To get it right, I have to memorize and internalize some explicit grammar rule, rather than relying on intuitions about what "sounds right".
(As for clarity in techincal writing, I say we go for the IETF approach -- write up a 20-page document defining MUST, SHOULD, and MAY in agonizing detail, then write then in ALL CAPS to warn the reader that they aren't ordinary WORDS
;) Re:apples and oranges
Matts on 2002-09-26T06:56:28
"which" tends to be more often right in English than in American English. I wonder how an editor penalises us brits;-) Re:apples and oranges
gnat on 2002-09-26T15:38:38
Perhaps in spoken English, but in written English the rule is the same for every culture. That helps you identify something, whereas which gives you more information. Consider... There may have been several dogs. One barked. Matt kicked it.Matt kicked the dog that barked.Compare that to this
... There was one dog. Matt kicked it. It then barked.Matt kicked the dog, which barked.Gwammaticians call the former a defining or restricting clause, whereas the latter is a non-restrictive. The non-restrictive clauses (those giving more information about something already clearly identified) can always be put in parentheses or prefixed by a comma. So I always say "would I have put a comma in front of that? If so, then use which".
This rule may only work because I have stronger punctuation fu than grammar fu
:-) --Nat
Re:apples and oranges
pdcawley on 2002-09-26T07:49:51
Um... in the 'that'/'which' example you give, what's wrong with "the book I like"?
I always get mixed up with shall and will. But I gather the US rule on that is 'You shall always use will.'
Re:apples and oranges
gnat on 2002-09-26T15:48:31
There's an implicit "that" in "the book I like". I write sentences like that--strategic omission of implied words can make sentences easier to read, I feel. I did this when editing TorgoX's chapters, and the next draft I got from him had all the "that"s put back in! Apparently he didn't feel the same way:-)
He won, by the way. It's a stupid person who argues against a linguist about language.
--Nat
("stupid person" can also be read as "another linguist", which I ain't:-) Re:apples and oranges
gnat on 2002-09-26T15:51:52
And, apparently, a stupid person who doesn't use "Preview":-) --Nat
Re:apples and oranges
gnat on 2002-09-26T15:57:53
As for shall and will, it's a very English thing. The grammar books waffle about shades of meaning (shall implying "obligation, necessity, or permission" and will implying "resolve or determination") but nobody has ever convinced me that anybody who uses those words knows this rule or consistently employs it.Torgo? Can you prove me wrong?
--Nat
Re:apples and oranges
pdcawley on 2002-09-26T17:38:44
There is a difference, Gill always quotes the pair: "I shall drown! No one will save me." and "I will drown! No one shall save me."
One implies intent on the part of the drowner (the latter I think), and the other implies the inevitable workings of a natural process.
And, on googling for those phrases I find that my gut feeling was right.
However, note that it's one of those irregular verbs... "I shall, you will, he will" implies 'Inevitable, no intent involved'. "I will, you shall, he shall" implies 'obligation/intent'.Re:apples and oranges
gnat on 2002-09-26T18:08:34
One of the delights of working in the US as an editor is that I get to s{shall}{will}g and forget about it:-) --Nat
Re:apples and oranges
gnat on 2002-09-26T15:44:02
I think "its" and "it's" confusion arises because of possessives. Other words use "'s" to indicate possession: "I kicked the dog's bollocks". So you assume a pattern and apply the pattern: "I kicked it's bollocks". BZZZT."It's" used to be possessive in English, but that changed. "Its" is the possessive form, and "it's" is a contraction for "it is". So now when you have to kick a dog you aim for "its bollocks", and when you listen to "the Bush doctrine" you think "it's bollocks".
This would probably make more sense to Americans if they knew what "bollocks" meant
:-) --Nat
Re:apples and oranges
Theory on 2002-09-26T18:01:34
if you know of one, please let us know!Here's the rule I always use: I recite to myself, "Dogs which bite" and "Dogs that bite". Nat's right about the comma, as in the first example I'd rather have "Dogs, which bite." That's the way it flows for me (punctuation-foo).
Anyway, when I recite these two phrases, I hear their meaning. The first implies that "all dogs bite," and I'm talking about all dogs, while the latter implies that "some doges bite," and I'm just talking about those particular dogs. Then it's easy for me to use the right one, as I already know whether I'm talking about just those things that x, or about all things and all things x.
--David
Re:apples and oranges
jdavidb on 2002-09-26T13:32:38
++ on everything you said about the importance of correct writing.
I come from the same state as President Bush. I remember my fifth grade teacher, Ms. Tanner, teaching us to say "nuclear," not "nucular." She had everyone in the class, even some particularly ditzy girls, say it properly. It has stayed with me since then. [Although I remember in sixth grade all the students in the fifth grade enriched math class saying they didn't remember fractions, so maybe I'm the only one who ever retained something he learned from year to year... sigh...]
I love President Bush. He drives me nuts with "nucular." It's embarrassing. But I love him nonetheless.
So why is Bush a jackass? Is it because his spoken grammar is poor? Is he truly less intelligent than you or me? Is it because he has beliefs that are different from yours? Has he got anything of value to offer? Have you flipped the bozo bit?
Political thread (was Re:apples and oranges)
gnat on 2002-09-26T16:57:51
I think Bush is a jackass because all evidence I see points toward him being a brainless puppet for the Washington insiders who form his cabinet. He can't speak or think on his feet at all. The man's the public face of our nation at a time when international relationships are critically important to our future, and there are thirteen year olds taking public speaking classes who can do better.The Daily Show this week had an amazing clip, where he was just plain embarrassing trying to do the "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" proverb. It came out "there's a saying in Tennessee--at least, it's in Texas so it's probably in Tennessee--fool me once
... ... .. ... shame on me ... .. .. .. fool--anyway, we can't be fooled again." It was so obvious at the first pause that he didn't want to fuck it up, didn't trust himself not to fuck it up, and wished to hell he'd never opened his mouth. Oh, and I disagree with his corporate-kissass warmongering economic divide-widening politics. It pisses me off so much I'm downloading citizenship forms now. If I can retain my NZ citizenship, I'll naturalize just to vote against him in 2004.
--Nat
Perhaps people don't get how unprofessional that looks. Perhaps people don't even understand that it's wrong!
Recent bad examples I saw:
"[module] is best used when a data import or export is required but the task cannot be completed in a single pass"
or
"The use of [some SQL syntax] allows this procedure to take place without requiring that the database and application program exchange the data repeatedly."
Re:My writing tips
gnat on 2002-09-26T03:06:57
Yes! "The use of" is another nothing phrase that gets deleted as soon as I see it. "The use of marijuana induces a high" vs "Marijuana induces a high". "The use of [SQL syntax] allows this procedure" vs "[SQL syntax] allows this procedure".--Nat
Wow, this really seems to have gotten people up in arms.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned William Safire's "Rules for Writers". It's a document where every sentence violates the rule it mentions. There are several incarnations on the web, although this one seems the most popular.
Re:Strunk & White, baby
gnat on 2002-09-26T03:19:25
Actually, we talked for a while about putting together a care package of Don't Write Like The President Speaks books, but eventually decided it'd be cheaper and easier in the long run to just have people write sample chapters first:-) --Nat
Re:Strunk & White, baby
jdavidb on 2002-09-26T13:37:20
Don't Write Like The President Speaks books
In fairness, though I love the President, I laughed out loud at that thought.
:) Re:Strunk & White, baby
da on 2002-09-26T15:22:17
I really like the idea about a Technical Writing and Grammer RFC.I wish I had sufficient round tuits to turn Strunk and White into a proper RFC, complete with MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc. Does anybody here have RFC experience and want to give it a go?...
Re:Strunk & White, baby
brian_d_foy on 2002-09-26T19:24:46
Do not spend time writing an RFC. They already exist as The Chicago Manual of Style, The AP Style Book, The Economist Style Guide, Strunk & White's Elements of Style, and so on. Creating another resource for writers who already do not use those is a waste of energy. You could hardly do better than those, and at best start an endless series of language flame wars.
Besides that, each publication has their own rules and style. No one style is the correct style. The first principle is Consistency, and after that it is local preference. O'Reilly has its style guide, The Perl Review has its style guide, and most academic journals have theirs. A lot of trade magazines do not care too much about your writing, so they do not enforce a style. They exist to show you ads, not to make you a better writer.
The United States Army has an amazing style guide. All commissioned officers take a course in writing, and it is a lot better than anything I have seen in any college course because it recognizes that every sort of writing has a different purpose and that each purpose is best achieved with a particular style. They focus on effective communication, the true purpose of all writing, rather than mechanics. The only common feature is Consistency.
Re:Hey, I knew it wasn't me!
chromatic on 2002-09-26T22:03:35
Look out, or gnat's going to come after you yelling something about subjunctive cases!
Re:Hey, I knew it wasn't me!
Elian on 2002-09-26T22:15:17
What, you mean editors give feedback? Wow, cool! I didn't realize that. I thought they just harrassed you for text to pass on to production...
