Writing Tips
for clarity and concisenessArchive for February, 2008
Every or Not Every?
Using “every” when we really mean “not every” makes a huge difference. Here are two examples:
Every investigation doesn’t yield new data, but investigating is necessary if anything is to be found.
It’s clear that the writer meant this instead:
Not every investigation yields new data, but investigating is necessary if anything is to be found.
Here’s another one:
Every Iraqi isn’t running around with a rifle on his shoulder.
In this case, the writer intended the following:
Not every Iraqi is running around with a rifle on his shoulder.
I welcome your questions and comments. If you’re not quite sure if a sentence you have written is clear, send it to me and I’ll help you with it.
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Once is Enough
This sentence uses two words to achieve the same purpose. One would have been enough:
Frankly, I was a little more than tired of both the anticipation and the rain, too.
I found it in a mystery novel, and the sentences around it make it clear that either “both” or “too” would do:
Frankly, I was a little more than tired of both the anticipation and the rain.
Frankly, I was a little more than tired of the anticipation–and the rain, too.
Notice that I added a dash to the sentence that ends in “too”; without the dash, it would have a different meaning:
Frankly, I was a little more than tired of the anticipation and the rain, too.
Do you see the problem? Without the dash, “too” suggests that the writer isn’t the only one who is tired of the anticipation and the rain. Judging by the context, that wasn’t the writer’s intention.
Comments?
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Treasurefield Communications
Creeping Clutter
Clutter creeps into our work, our homes, our relationships–and into our writing. Clutter crept into the following sentence:
By the time she hung up, they were on a first name basis and she felt as if she’d made a friend for life. She also felt as if that life was suddenly so much more uncomplicated.
This would be a less cluttered way to say the same thing:
By the time she hung up, they were on a first name basis and she felt as if she’d made a friend for life. She also felt as if life were suddenly much simpler.
What do you think of my suggested changes? Would you do it differently?
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Treasurefield Communications
Syntax Contest Winner
The winner of the February 26 Syntax Contest is Georg Muntingh.
The syntax-troubled sentence that George corrected reads like this:
Gennifer Flowers claimed that she had a 12-year relationship with Bill Clinton in 1992.
Following is Georg’s correct assessment of the problem with this sentence, and his guess at what the author intended to say:
The writer states that within the year of 1992, Gennifer Flowers managed to fit in a 12-year relationship with Bill Clinton. The writer probably intends to say that in 1992 Gennifer Flowers claimed to have been in a relationship with Bill Clinton for the past twelve years.
Correct.
The only thing I’d change is the phrase “for the past twelve years,” because the original sentence doesn’t state that. If the claimed twelve-year relationship were on-again-off-again, the twelve years would have accumulated over a longer period of time.
I’d keep it as close as possible to the original statement, and put it like this:
In 1992, Gennifer Flowers claimed to have been in a relationship with Bill Clinton for twelve years.
Thank you, Georg!
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Treasurefield Communications
Syntax Contest
This is a contest, and there is a prize.
What is the syntax error in the following sentence?
Gennifer Flowers claimed that she had a 12-year relationship with Bill Clinton in 1992.
If you know the answer, and you’re the first person to send it in a comment, I’ll post your answer and name to this blog.
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Treasurefield Communications
syntax, syntax, syntax
The three sentences below illustrate why careful use of syntax (word order) matters.
This first example states that a fawn licked the author’s face all summer long:
I had been observing the fawn who had licked my face throughout the summer.
Actually, the fawn licked the author’s face just once that summer. This is the author’s intended meaning:
Throughout the summer, I had been observing the fawn who had licked my face.
In the next example, trucks and cars weep as they speed by:
I stood by the roadside as trucks and cars sped by and wept.
This is absurd, and of course the writer meant to say this:
I stood by the roadside and wept as trucks and cars sped by. OR,
As trucks and cars sped by, I stood by the roadside and wept.
The literal meaning of the third and last example is that the author was careful to keep his cigarettes off of both gum wrappers and the trail:
I didn’t drop cigarettes on the trail or gum wrappers.
With a corrected syntax, the true meaning is clear:
I didn’t drop cigarettes or gum wrappers on the trail.
In your own reading and listening, have you noticed some of the strange and often comical results of awkward syntax?
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Treasurefield Communications
Excess Words
Last weekend, I heard some word clutter over the radio:
It’s very crucial to leave our comfort zones to learn something new.
It’s absolutely critical that we tone down our rhetoric.
Since “crucial” means “essential,” there’s no need to modify it with “very.” Similarly, “critical” is “decisive,” “crucial,” and “a turning point”; modifying it with “absolutely” is a waste of the reader’s (and writer’s) time.
Here’s another example of clutter, taken from a novel. Notice that the “too” is extra, and that this sentence would read better without it:
Frankly, I was a little more than tired of both the anticipation and the rain, too.
The sentences below include even more clutter. When I heard them, I automatically, and perhaps unfairly, concluded that the speaker took so long to make his points because he’s pompous and arrogant:
The situation we have today is one where the two provinces remain politically divided.
I prefer something more simple and direct, like this:
Today, the two provinces remain politically divided.
The same speaker also said this:
We have a situation where there are going to be continued problems in that region.
Again, I prefer simplicity and directness:
There are going to be continued problems in that region. OR,
The problems in that region are going to continue.
What are your thoughts on this?
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Treasurefield Communications
Where Are We Now?
I recently came across the sentence below in a novel:
The eleven miles between Howard’s Ford and Cedar Gap took me forever, and when I got there it was more of the same.
After reading this sentence, do you know where the protagonist is?
If you guessed Cedar Gap, as I did, you’re wrong. Well, sort of wrong, because the next paragraph describes scenes and activities in Howard’s Ford as if that were the protagonist’s current location, and also scenes and activities in Cedar Gap as if the protagonist were there.
Then, in the paragraph after that, the protagonist stops at the grocery store in Howard’s Ford.
Annoyed, I nearly closed the book and added it to my return-to-library pile. But, hey, I’m a fan, and even the most vigilant of writers and editors can’t catch every little glitch in a manuscript. Things slip through.
Besides. I need material for my blog, so I slogged on, in spite of not knowing where the heck the protagonist was. The book is engaging, and it would be even more so if the reader didn’t have to work so hard to get oriented.
Questions and comments welcome.
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Treasurefield Communications
Too Much Work for One Sentence
The other evening, I came across this sentence and got stuck on the questions it raised for me. It’s a good example of how asking a sentence to do too much work can interrupt the reader’s flow:
A middle-aged man came through the crowded room and Marsha introduced me to the owner, who led us outside.
Who is the middle-aged man? Is he the owner? Apparently, since there doesn’t appear to be any other reason to mention him, so no harm done; except that it would be better if the questions didn’t arise in the first place. Here are a couple of alternatives. Note that both of them divide the work into two sentences, instead of leaving it all to one:
The owner, a middle-aged man, came through the crowded room to greet us. Marsha introduced me to him, and he led us outside.
A middle aged man who turned out to be the owner came through the crowded room. Marsha introduced me to him, and he led us outside.
Questions and comments welcome.
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Treasurefield Communications.
Credibility
When a sentence isn’t grammatically correct, readers may stumble over the words before understanding the meaning. They may also question the writer’s expertise.
Here’s a common example of incorrect grammar:
We appreciate you being here.
Grammatically accurate alternatives follow:
We appreciate your being here.
We appreciate you for being here.
We appreciate your presence.
We’re glad you’re here.
Questions and comments welcome.
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Treasurefield Communications.
