280 - Joseph M. Williams Style Lessons in Clarity and Grace 9th Edition 2006 (1)

5/23/2018 280 - Joseph M. Williams Style Lessons in Clarity and Grace 9th Edition 2006 (1) - sli...

http:///reader/full/280-joseph-m-williams-style-lessons-in-clarity-and-grace-9th-



C O N T E N T S

P A R T O N E Style as ChoiceL E S S O N O N E U n d e r s t a n d i n g S t y leL E S S O N T W O C o r r e c t n e s s

P A R T T W O ClarityL E S S O N T H R E E A c t i o n sL E S S O N F O U R C h a r a c t e r sL E S S O N F I V E C o h e s i o n a n d C o h e r e n c eL E S S O N S I X E m p h a s i s

P A R T T H R E E GraceL E S S O N S E V E N C o n c i s i o nL E S S O N E I G H T S h a p eL E S S O N N I N E E l e g a n c e

P A R T F O U R Clarity of FormL E S S O N T E N M o t i v a t i n g C o h e r e n c eL E S S O N E L E V E N G l o b a l C o h e r e n c e

P A R T F I V E EthicsL E S S O N T W E L V E Th e Et h ic s o f S ty le

A ppendix PunctuationG lossarySuggested A nswers



PREFACEMost people won't realize that writing is a craft.

You have to take your ap prenticeship in it like anything else. K A T H E R I N E A N N E P O R T E R

T H E N I N T H E D I T I O NWhat's NewThe obvious change to this ninth edit ion of Style is a new subti t le:no longer Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace but just Lessons in ...To avoid changing the t i t le of past edit ions, I added material underthe headings of epilogue, appendix, a n d afterword, creating ahodge-podge of a book. In the interest of straightening out thisdisorder , I 've turned the two epilogues into lessons and put thembefore the lesson on ethics.I have also made substantive changes. I have replaced the ethi-cal analysis of Lincoln's Second In augu ral Address with an analysisof the Declaration of Independ ence. In this new analysis, I ma ke thesame point I did about the Second Inaugural: We should under-stand how gif ted writers ma nipu late the languag e of their a rgum entand thereby our responses to i ts logic and substance, and considerthe ethical implications of that manipulation.I have added new material .To Lesson 2, I 've added a reference l ist of real and allegederrors so that readers can f ind a discussion of them more easily.I 've also added a note suggesting that while the so-called ruleabout not beginning a sentence wi th because makes no sense, i t isstylistically sound advice.To Lesson 8, I 've added a section on how to work quotationsin to the f low of a sentence graceful ly and how to punctuatearound quotat ion marks.To Lesson 10 (formerly the second epilogue), I 've added mat-erial on introductions, a new section on diagnosing and revisingint roduct ions, a nd a new sect ion on conclusions.



To Lesson 11, I 've added a note on par agra phs tha t m ight di s -concer t som e teachers , but th a t I think takes a rea li s t ic view a bo utthe i r s t ruc ture .To Lesson 12 on ethics, I 've added a sect ion on plagiarism.Most t rea tm ents of the subjec t focus on the ac t ions tha t const i tutei t , but thi s book i s based on how readers make judgments , so Idi scuss plagia r i sm from the readers ' point of view: what makesthem suspec t it , so tha t ho nes t wri te rs can avoid the mis take n p er-ception of it .To the appendix on punctuat ion, I 've added a sect ion on artfulsentence f ragments and on apost rophes , an d highl ighted m ore occa-sions where choices in punctuat ion have styl ist ic consequences.In several lessons, I 've added a new feature cal led "Quick Tip."These offe r shor t bi t s of prac t ica l advice about how to dea l wi thsome c ommon prob l e ms .I 've also done a lot of l ine edi t ing. After twenty-five years ofrevising this book, you'd think by this t ime I 'd have i t right , butthere a lways seem to be sentences tha t m ake m e s lap my fore head,wondering how I could have wri t t en them.What's the SameThis ninth edi t ion a ims a t answering the same ques t ions I askedin the earl ier ones:

W hat is i t in a sente nce tha t make s reade rs jud ge i t as they do? Ho w do we diagnose ou r own pro se to ant ic ipa te th e i rj udgme nt s? How do we revise a sentence so tha t read ers wi ll think be t te rof it?

The s tandard advice about wri t ing ignores those ques t ions . I tis mostly t ruisms l ike Make a plan, D on't use the passive, Think ofyour audienceadvice tha t most of us ignore as we wrest le ideasout onto the page . When I dra f ted thi s paragraph, I wasn ' t th ink-ing abo ut you; I was s t ruggl ing to ge t my ow n ideas s t ra ight . I didknow tha t I would come back to these sentences aga in and aga in(I didn ' t know tha t i t would be for more than twenty-f ive years) ,and tha t i t would be only thenas I revisedthat I could thinkabo ut you and discover the plan tha t f i t my d raf t . I al so knew tha tas I did so, there were some principles I could rely on. This bookexpla ins them.



P R I N C I P L E S , N O T P R E S C R I P T I O N SThose principles may seem prescriptive, but that 's not how Iin tend the m. I of fer them as ways to help you predic t how readerswi l l judge your prose and then help you decide whether and howto revise i t . As you try to follow those principles, you may writemore slowly. That 's inevitable. Whenever we reflect on what wedo as we do i t , we become self-conscious, sometimes to the pointof near-paralysis. I t passes. And you can avoid some of i t i f youremember that these pr incip les have less to do wi th draf t ing thanwith revision. If there is a f irst principle ofdrafting, it is to ignoremost of the advice about how to do i t .S O M E P R E R E Q U I S I T E STo learn how to revise eff iciently, though, you must know a fewthings:

You should know a few grammat ical terms: SUB JEC T, VER B ,NOUN , AC TIVE, PASSIVE, C LAUSE, PR EPO SITION , a n d C OOR DINATION.All grammatical terms are capital ized the f irst t ime theyappear and are defined in the text or in the Glossary.

You have to learn new m eaning s for two famil iar words: TOPICa n d S T R E S S . You will have to learn a few new terms. Two are important:NOMINALIZATIONa nd M ETADISC OUR SE; three areuseful: R ESUM PTIVEM ODIFIER , SUM M ATIVE M ODIFIER , and F R E E M O D I F I E R . Some stu-dents object to learning new words, but the only way to avoidthat is never to learn anything new.Finally, if you read this book on your own, go slowly. It is notan amiable essay to read in a si t t ing or two. Take the lessons a fewpages at a t ime, up to the exercises. Do the exercises, edit so me oneelse's writ ing, then some of your own writ ten a few weeks ago,then something you wrote that day.Over the last twenty-five years, I have been gratif ied by the

reception of Style. To those of you who have sent me com men tsand responsesthank you. I 'm also pleased that the f irst edit ioncreated a new topic in l inguist ic studies: metadiscourse. The fewpages de voted to tha t topic in the f irst edit ion have led to scores ofart icles and even a few book s. A web searc h for metadiscourse



genera ted 42,000 hi t s .Style has had a good run, and I am gra te fulto those of you w ho have fo und i t he lpful . All com me nts o n thi sedi t ion a re welcome.AnInstruction Manual is avai lable for those who are interestedin the scholar ly and pedagogica l thinking tha t has gone into Style.



P R I N C I P L E S A N D A I M SThis book rests on two principles: i t is good to write clearly, andanyone can. The f irst is self-evident, especially to those who mustread a lot of writing like this:

An understanding of the causal factors involved in excessive drinkingby s tudents could lead to their more effect ive t reatme nt .But that second pr incip le may seem opt imist ic to those who wantto write clearly, but can't get close to this:

We could mo re effectively tre at stu den ts who d rink excessively if weunders tood why they do.Of course, writ ing fails for reasons more serious than unclearsentences. We bewilder readers when we can ' t organize complexideas coherently (an issue I address in Lesson 11). And they won'teven read what we've writ ten unless we motivate them to (an issueI address in Lesson 10). But once we've formulated our claims, or-ganized suppor t ing reasons, grounded them on sound evidence,and motivated readers to read attentively, we must st i l l express i tal l clearly, a diff icult task for most writers and a daunting one formany.I t is a problem that has aff l icted generations of writers whohave h idden thei r ideas not only f rom thei r readers , but some-

times even from themselves. When we read that kind of writ ing ingovernment regulations, we call i t bureaucratese; when we read i tin legal documents, legalese; in acad em ic writ ing th at inflatessmall ideas into gassy abstractions, academese. Writ ten deliber-ately or carelessly, i t is a language of exclusion that a democracycannot tolerate. I t is also a problem with a long history.

A S H O R T H I S T O R Y O F U N C L E A R W R I T I N GThe PastI t wasn't unti l about the middle of the sixteenth century that writ-ers of English decided that i t was eloquent enough to replaceLatin and French in serious discourse. But their f irst efforts werewrit ten in a style so complex that i t defeated easy understanding:

If use and custom, having the help of so long time and continuancewherein to [re]fine our tongue, of so great learning and experience



which fu rnish matte r for the [re]fining, of so good wits and judgm entswhich can tell how to refine, have griped at nothing in all that time,with all that cunning, by all those wits which they won't let go buthold for most certain in the right of our writing, that then our tonguehas no certainty to trust to, but write all at random. Richard Mulcaster, The First Part of the Elementary, 1582

W i t h i n a c e n t u ry , a c o m p l e x s t y l e h a d s p r e a d t o t h e w r i t i n g o fs c i e n t i s t s ( o r , a s t h e y w e re c a l l e d , natural philosophers). As on ec o m p l a i n e d ,

Of al l the s tudies of men, nothing may sooner be obtained than th isvicious abundance of phrase, this trick of metaphors, this volubilityof tongue which makes so great a noise in the world.

T homas Sprat, History of the Royal Society, 1667W h e n t h i s c o n t i n e n t w a s s e t t l e d , w r i t e r s c o u l d h a v e e s t a b -

l i s h e d a n e w , d e m o c ra t i c p ro s e s t y l e , n e i t h e r n o i s y n o r v o l u b l e ,b u t s i m p l e a n d d i r e c t . I n f a c t , i n 1 7 7 6 , t h e p l a i n w o r d s o f Th o m a sP a i n e ' s Common Sense h e l p e d i n s p i r e o u r R e v o l u t i o n :

In the fo l lowing pages I offer nothing more than s imple facts , p lainarguments , and common sense.S a d t o s a y , h e s p a rk e d n o r e v o l u t i o n i n o u r n a t i o n a l p ro s e

sty le.B y t h e e a r ly n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u ry , J a m e s F e n i m o r e C o o p e r w a sc o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t o u r w r i t i n g :The love of turgid expressions is gaining ground, and ought to be cor-rected. One of the most certain evidences of a man of high breeding,is his simplicity of speech: a simplicity that is equally removed fromvulgarity and ex agger ation. . . . Simplicity sho uld be the firm aim , af-ter one is removed from vulgari ty. . . . In no case, however, can onewho aims at turgid language, exaggerated sent iments , or pedantic u t-terances , lay claim to be ei ther a ma n or a wom an of the w orld .

J ames Fenimore Cooper, The American Democrat, 1838U n fo r t u n a t e l y , i n a b u s i n g t h a t s t y l e , C o o p e r a d o p t e d i t . H a d h efo l l o w e d h i s o w n a d v i c e , h e m i g h t h a v e w r i t t e n ,

We should d iscourage those who love turgid language. A well-bredperson speaks simply, in a way that is neither vulgar nor exaggerated.No one can claim to be a man or woman of the world who exagger-ates sent iments or del iberately speaks in ways that are turgid orpedantic .



A b o u t f i f t y y e a r s l a t e r , Ma rk Tw a i n w ro t e w h a t w e n o w t h i n ki s c l a s s i c A m e r i c a n p ro s e . H e s a i d t h i s a b o u t C o o p e r ' s s t y l e :There have been daring people in the world who claimed tha t Coopercould write English, but they are all dead nowall dead but Louns-buiy [an academic who praised Cooper's style], . . . [He] says thatDeerslayer is a "pure work of art." . . . [But] Cooper wrote about thepoorest English that exists in our language, and . . . the English ofDeerslayer is the very worst tha[t] even Cooper ever wrote.

A s m u c h a s w e a l l a d m i r e Tw a i n ' s d i r e c t n e s s , f e w o f u s e m u l a t e i t .

The PresentIn t h e b e s t -k n o w n e s s a y o n m o d e rn En g l i s h s t y l e , " P o l i t i c s a n d t h eE n g l i s h L a n g u a g e , " G e o r g e O r w e l l a n a t o m i z e d t h e t u r g i d l a n g u a g eo f p o l i t i c i a n s , b u r e a u c ra t s , a c a d e m i c s , a n d o t h e r s u c h w i n d ys p e a k e r s a n d w r i t e r s :

The keynote [of a pretentious style] is the elimination of simple verbs.Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, averb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on tosome general-purposes verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. Inaddition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference tothe active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (byexamination of inste ad ofby examining) .B u t a s C o o p e r d i d , i n a b u s i n g t h a t s t y l e O rw e l l a d o p t e d i t . H ec o u l d h a v e w r i t t e n m o re c o n c i s e l y :Pretent ious wri ters avoid s imple verbs . Ins tead of us ing one word,such as break, stop, kill, they turn the verb into a noun or adjective,then tack onto i t a general-purpose verb such as prove, serve , form,play, render. They use the passive voice everywhere instead of theact ive, and noun construct ions ins tead of gerunds (by examinationinstead ofby examining).I f the bes t -known cr i t i c o f a tu rg id s ty le cou ld no t res i s t i t , we

o u g h t n o t b e s u r p r i s e d t h a t p o l i t i c i a n s a n d a c a d e m i c s e m b r a c e i t .O n t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s :

A turgid a nd polysyllabic pros e does seem to prevail in the socialsciences. . . . Such a lack of ready intelligibility, I believe, usually haslittle or nothing to do with the complexity of thought. It has to doalmost ent i rely with certain confusions of the academic wri ter abouthis own status.

C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination



O n t h e l a n g u a g e o f m e d i c i n e :It now appears that obligatory obfuscation is a firm tradition withinthe medical profession. . . . [Medical writing] is a highly skilled,calculated at temp t to confuse the reader. . . . A doctor feels hemight get passed over for an ass is tant professorship because he wrotehis papers too clearlybecause he made his ideas seem too simple.

M ichael Crichton, New England Journal of M edicineO n t h e l a n g u a g e o f l a w :

In law journals , in speeches , in classrooms and in courtroom s,lawyers and judges are beginning to worry about how often they havebeen misunders tood, and they are d iscovering that sometimes theycan ' t even unders tand each other.

Tom Goldstein, New York TimesO n t h e l a n g u a g e o f s c i e n c e :

There are t imes when the more the authors explain [about ape com-municat ion], the less we unders tand. Apes certain ly seem capable ofusing language to communicate. Whether scient is ts are remainsdoubtful . D ouglas Chadwick, New York Times

Mo s t o f u s f i r s t c o n f ro n t t h a t k i n d o f w r i t i n g i n t e x t b o o k s e n -tences l ike th i s one :

Recognit ion of the fact that systems [of gram ma r] d iffer from onelanguage to another can serve as the basis for serious considerat ionof the problems confront ing t ranslators of the great works of worldl i terature orig inal ly wri t ten in a language other than English .In a b o u t h a l f a s m a n y w o rd s , t h a t m e a n s ,

When we recognize that languages have different grammars , we canconsider the problems of those who translate great works of l i tera-ture in to English .G e n e r a t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s h a v e s t r u g g l e d w i t h d e n s e w r i t i n g ,

m a n y t h i n k i n g t h e y w e r e n ' t s m a r t e n o u g h t o g r a s p a w r i t e r ' s d e e pi d e a s . S o m e h a v e b e e n r i g h t a b o u t t h a t , b u t m o r e c o u l d h a v eb l a m e d t h e w r i t e r ' s i n a b i l i t y ( o r r e fu s a l ) t o w r i t e c le a r ly . M a n ys tuden ts , s ad to say , g ive up ; sadder s t i l l , o thers l ea rn no t on ly tor e a d t h a t s t y l e b u t t o w r i t e i t , i n f l i c t i n g i t o n t h e n e x t g e n e ra t i o n o fr e a d e r s , t h e r e b y s u s t a i n i n g a 4 5 0 -y e a r - o ld t r a d i t i o n o f u n r e a d a b l ew r i t i n g .



S O M E P R IV A T E C A U S E S O F U N C L E A R W R I T I N GIf unclear writ ing has a long social history, i t also has privatecauses. Michael Cr ichton ment ioned one: some wr i ters p lump upthei r prose to impress those who th ink that compl icated sen-tences indicate deep th inking. And in fact , when we want tohide the fact that we don ' t know what we ' re ta lk ing about , wetypical ly throw up a tangle of abst ract words in long, complexsentences.Others write graceless prose not deliberately but because theyare seized by the idea that writ ing is good only when i t is free ofer rors that only a gram ma r ian can expla in . They approach a b lankpage not as a space to explore new ideas, but as a minefield tocross gingerly. They creep from word to word, concerned less withthei r readers ' understanding than wi th thei r own survival . I ad-dress that issue in Lesson 2.Others write unclearly because they freeze up, especially whenthey are learning to th ink and wr i te in a new academic or profes-s ional se t t ing . The af f l ic ted include not just und ergrad uates takingtheir f irst course in economics or psychology, but graduate stu-dents, businesspeople, doctors, lawyersanyone writ ing on a newtopic for unfam il iar and therefore in t imidat ing readers .As we struggle to master new ideas, most of us write worsethan we do when we wr i te about th ings we understand bet ter . I fthat sounds l ike you, take heart: you will write more clearly onceyou more c learly understan d your subject and rea ders .But the biggest reason most of us write unclearly is that wedon ' t know when others th ink we do, much less why. What wewrite always seems clearer to us than i t does to our readers, be-cause we can read into i t what we want them to get out of i t . Andso instead of revising our writ ing to meet their needs, we send i toff the moment i t meets ours.In all of this, of course, there is a great irony: we are likely toconfuse o thers when we wr i te about a subject that confuses us .But when we a lso read about a confusing subject wr i t ten in acomplex style, we too easily assume that i ts complexity signalsdeep thought , and so we t ry to imi ta te i t , compounding our a l -ready co nfused wr i t ing .This book shows you how to avoid that trap, how to read yourown writ ing as others will , and, when you should, how to make i tbetter.



O N W R I T I N G A N D R E W R I T I N GA warn ing: if you th in k abo ut the pr inc ip les of fere d here asyou draft, you may never draf t anything. Most exper iencedwri ters get something down on paper or up on the screen asfast as they can . Then as they rewr i te that f i r s t draf t in to some-th ing c learer , they understand thei r ideas bet ter . And whenthey understand thei r ideas bet ter , they express them moreclearly, and the more clearly they express them, the better theyun de rst an d th em . . . and s o it goes, unti l they run out of energy,interest , or t ime.

For a for tunate few, that m om ent comes weeks, months , evenyears af ter they begin. (Over the last twenty-five years, I 've wres-t led this book through dozens of drafts, and there are parts I st i l lcan't get right.) For mo st of us, thou gh, the d eadlin e is closer to to-morrow morning. And so we have to sett le for prose that is lessthan perfect , but as good as we can make i t . (Perfection is theideal , but a barr ier to done.)So use what you f ind here not as rules to impose on every sen-tenceas you draft i t , but as principles to help you identify already-writ ten sentences l ikely to give your readers a problem, and thento revise thos e sen tence s quickly.As important as clari ty is, though, some occasions call formore:Now the t rumpet summons us againnot as a cal l to bear arms,though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are;but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in andyear out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation," a struggle againstthe common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.

John F. K ennedy, I naugural Address, January 20, 1961Few of us are called upon to write a presidential address, but ineven our modest prose, some of us take a private pleasure in writ-ing a shapely sentence, regardless of whether anyone will notice.If you enjoy not just writ ing a sentence but craft ing i t , you willf ind suggestions in Lesson 9. In Lessons 10 and 11, I go beyond theclari ty of individual sentences to discuss the coherence of a wholedocument. Writ ing is also a social act that might or might notserve the best interests of readers, so in Lesson 12, I address someissues about the ethics of style. In an Appendix, I discuss styles ofpunc tua t ion .



Ma ny years ago, H. L . Men cken w rote thi s :With precious few exceptions, all the books on style in English are bywri ters qu i te unable to wri te . The subject , indeed, seems to exercise aspecial and dreadful fascinat ion over school ma'ams, bucolic col legeprofessors , and other suc h pseudoli terates . . . . Their central aim , ofcourse, is to reduce the whole thing to a series of simple rulestheovermastering passion of their melancholy order, at al l t imes andeverywhere.Mencken was right: no one learns to wri te well by rule, espe-c ial ly those wh o can not fee l or think o r see . But I kno w tha t ma ny

who do see clearly, feel deeply, and think careful ly can' t wri te sen-tences tha t m ake the i r thou ghts , fee l ings , and vi s ions c lear to oth-ers. I also know that the more clearly we wri te , the more clearlywe see and fee l and think. Rules he lp no one do tha t , but someprinc iples can.Here they are.



U N D E R S T A N D I N G C O R R E C T N E S STo a careful writer , nothing is more important than choice, but insome mat ters , we have nonewe can ' t put the af ter a N O U N , as instreet the (capitalized words are defined in the Glossary) . But wechoose when we can. For example, which of these sentenceswould you choose to write if you wanted readers to think youwrote clearly?

1. Lack of media support was the cause of our election loss.2. We lost the election because the media did not support us.

Most of us choose (2).Unlike clari ty, though, correctness seems a matter not ofchoice, but of obedience. When the American Heritage D ictionarysays that irregardless is "never acceptable" (except, they say, forhum or) , our f reed om to choose it seems a t best academic. In m at-ters of this kind, we choose not between better and worse, but be-tween r ight and utter ly, irredeemably, unequivocally Wrong.W hich, of course, is no choice at al l .But that lack of choice does seem to simplify things: "Correct-ness" requires not sound judgment but only a good memory. If wer emember tha t irregardless is always Wrong, i t ought n ot r ise to a neven subconscious level of choice. Some teachers and editorsthink we should memorize dozens of such "rules":

Never begin a senten ce with an d o r but. Never use double negatives. Never split INFINITIVES.

I t is, however, more complicated than that . Some rules arerealif we ignore them, we r isk being labeled at least unschooled:our verbs mus t agree wi th subjects ; our pro nou ns m ust agree wi ththei r referents . There are many others . But some of ten repeatedrules are less impor tant than many th ink; some are not even realrules. And if you obsess over them all , you hinder yourself fromwriting quickly and clearly. That 's why I address "correctness"now, before clari ty, because I want to put i t where i t belongsbehind us .



R U L E S O F G R A M M A R A N D T H E B A S I S O FT H E I R A U T H O R I T YO p i n i o n i s s p l i t o n t h e s o c i a l r o l e o f r u l e s o f g r a m m a r . To s o m e ,t h e y a r e j u s t a n o t h e r d e v i c e t h a t t h e In s u s e t o c o n t ro l t h e O u t s b ys t i g m a t i z i n g t h e i r l a n g u a g e a n d t h e r e b y d i s c o u r a g e t h e i r s o c i a la n d p o l i t i c a l a s p i r a t i o n s . To o t h e r s , t h e ru l e s o f S t a n d a rd En g l i s hh a v e b e e n s o r e f i n e d b y g e n e r a t i o n s o f e d u c a t e d s p e a k e r s a n dw r i t e r s t h a t t h e y a r e n o w a f o r c e o f n a t u r e a n d t h e r e f o r e o b s e r v e db y a l l t h e b e s t w r i t e r s o f En g l i s h o r a t l e a s t s h o u l d b e .Correctness as H istorical AccidentB o t h v i e w s a r e c o r r e c t , p a r t l y . F o r c e n t u r i e s , t h o s e g o v e rn i n g o u ra f f a i r s h a v e u s e d g r a m m a t i c a l " e r r o r s " t o s c r e e n o u t t h o s e u n w i l l -i n g o r u n a b l e t o a c q u i r e t h e h a b i t s o f t h e s c h o o l e d m i d d l e c l a s s .B u t t h e y a r e w ro n g t o c l a i m t h a t t h o s e ru l e s w e re devised fo r t h a te n d . S t a n d a rd fo rm s o f a l a n g u a g e o r i g i n a t e i n a c c i d e n t s o f g e o g -r a p h y a n d e c o n o m i c p o w e r . W h e n a l a n g u a g e h a s d i f f e r e n t r e -g i o n a l d i a l e c t s , t h a t o f t h e m o s t p o w e r fu l s p e a k e r s u s u a l l y b e -c o m e s t h e m o s t p r e s t i g i o u s a n d t h e b a s i s f o r a n a t i o n ' s " c o r r e c t "w r i t i n g .

Th u s i f s o m e g e o g ra p h i c a l a c c i d e n t h a d p u t S c o t l a n d c l o s e r t oE u r o p e t h a n L o n d o n is , a n d if i ts c a p i t a l , E d i n b u r g h , h a d b e c o m et h e c e n t e r o f B r i t a i n ' s e c o n o m i c , p o l i t i c a l , a n d l i t e r a ry l i f e , w ew o u l d s p e a k a n d w r i t e l e s s l i k e S h a k e s p e a re a n d m o re l i k e t h eS c o t t i s h p o e t B o b b y B u r n s :

Correctness as UnpredictabilityC o n s e rv a t i v e s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a r e r i g h t t h a t m a n y ru l e s o f S t a n -d a r d En g l i s h o r i g i n a t e d i n e f f i c i e n t e x p re s s i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , w e n ol o n g e r u s e a l l t h e e n d i n g s t h a t o u r v e rb s r e q u i r e d a t h o u s a n d y e a r s



But c r i t i cs on the r ight a re wrong when they c la im tha t Stan-dard Engl i sh has been re f ined by the logic of educa ted speakersand wri te rs , and so must by i t s very na ture be super ior to the de-based language of their al leged social inferiors.True, many rules of Standard English do reflect an evolut ion to-war d logical efficiency. But i f by logical we m ean regu lar and there-fore predic table , then S tandard Engl i sh i s in many w aysless logicalthan nonstandard Engl i sh. For example , the Standard Engl i shcont rac t ion in I'm here, aren't ? isaren't. But what could be moreunpredic tably ungra mm at ica l than the ful l form , I am here, areI not? Logically, we should contract am + not to amn't, which isin fac t one hi s tor ica l source of the nonstandard ain't (the other isar e+not). So the s tandardaren't I is less logical than the historicallypredictable but social ly st igmatized ain't I. We could ci te a dozenexamples where theviolation of a rule of Standard English reflectsa logica l mind m aking Engl i sh gra mm ar m ore consis tent.But i t is , of course, the very inconsistency of Standard Englishtha t m akes i t s rules so useful to those who w ould use th em to di s -c r imina te : to speak and wri te Standard Engl i sh, we must e i ther beborn into i t or invest years learning i t (along with the values of i tsspeakers) .

Here's the point: Those de te rm ined to di sc r im ina te wi llseize on any diffe renc e. Bu t our langu age see ms to reflect thequal i ty of our minds more di rec t ly than do our ZIP codes , soi t 's easy for those incl ined to look down on others to thinktha t grammat ica l "e rrors" indica te menta l or mora l def i -ciency. But that bel ief is not just factua l ly wro ng; in a d em oc-racy like ours, it is socially destructive. Yet even if logicpredic t s ain't, so much greater is the power of social conven-t ion that we avoid i t , a t least i f we hope to be taken seriouslywhen we wri te for se r ious p urpos es .

ago. We now omit present tense inflect ions in al l but one context(and w e don't need i t there):



T H R E E K I N D S O F R U L E SThese corrosive social at t i tudes about correctness have been en-couraged by generat ions of gramm ar ians who, in thei r zeal to cod-ify "good" English, have con fuse d thre e kinds of "rules":Real RulesReal ru les def ine wh at ma kes Engl ish Engl ish : AR TIC LES must pre-cede nouns: the book, no t book the. Speakers born in to Engl ishdon't think about these rules at al l when they write, and violatethem only when they are t ired or distracted.Social RulesSocial ru les d is t inguish Standard Engl ish f rom nonstandard: Hedoesn't have any money versus He don't have no money. Schooledwriters observe these rules as naturally as they observe the RealRules and th ink about them only when they not ice o thers v io la t -ing them. The only writers whoself-consciously try to follow the mare those not born into Standard English and str iving to r ise intothe educated class.Invented RulesFinally, some grammarians have invented a handful of rules thatthey think we all should observe. These are the rules that thegrammar pol ice enforce and that too many educated wr i ters ob-sess over. Most date from the last half of the eighteenth century:

Don't split infinitives, as in toquietly leave.Don't end a sentence with a P R E P O S I T I O N .

A few date f rom the twent ie th century:Don't usehopefully fo rI hope, as inHopefully, it won't rain.Don't usewhich fo rthat, as ina carwhich I sold.

For 250 years, grammarians have accused the best writers of vio-lating rules l ike these, and for 250 years the best writers have ig-nored them . Which i s lucky for the gram mar ian s, beca use i f wr it -ers did obey all the rules, grammarians would have to keepinventing new ones, or f ind another l ine of work. The fact is, none



of these invented rules ref lects the consensus of unselfconscioususage of our best writers.In this lesson, we focus on this third kind of rule, the handfulof invented ones, because only they vex those who already writeStandard Engl ish .Observing Rules ThoughtfullyI t is, however, no simple matter to deal with these rules if youwant to be thought of as someone who writes "correctly." Youcould ch oose th e worst-case policy: follow all the rules al l the t im ebecause somet ime, someone wi l l cr i t ic ize you for somethingforbeginning a sentence wi th an d or ending i t with up.But if you mindlessly obey all the rules al l the t ime, you r iskbecoming so obsessed with rules that you t ie yourself in knots.And sooner or later , you will impose those rulesreal or notonothers. After al l , what good is learning a rule if al l you can do isobey it?The alternative to blind obedience is selective observance. Butthen you have to decide which rules to observe an d which to ig-nore. And if you ignore an alleged rule, you may have to deal withsomeone whose passion for "good" grammar seems to endow herwith the power to see in a spli t infinit ive a sign of moral corrup-tion and social decay.

If you want to avoid being accused of "lacking standards," butrefuse to submit to whatever " ru le" someone can dredge up f romninth-grade Engl ish , you have to know m ore ab out these inventedrules than the rule-mongers do. The rest of this lesson helps youdo that .T w o K I N D S O F I N V E N T E D R U L E SWe can sort most of these invented rules into two groups: Folkloreand Elegant Options.FolkloreThese rules include those that most careful readers and writers ig-nore. You may n ot yet have ha d som e of the m in fl icted on you, b utchances are that one day you will . In what follows, the quotationsthat i l lustrate "violations" of these rules are from writers of con-siderable intellectual and scholarly stature or who, on matters of



O n t h i s m a t t e r , i t i s u s e fu l t o c o n s u l t t h e g u i d e u s e d b y c o n s e r -v a t i v e w r i t e r s : t h e second e d i t i o n of H . W . F o w l e r s A Dictio-nary of Modem English Usage ( f i r s t e d i t i o n , O x fo rd U n i v e r s i t yP re s s , 1 9 2 6 ; s e c o n d e d i t i o n , 1 9 6 5 ; t h i r d e d i t i o n , 1 9 9 7 , c o n s i d -e r e d t o o p e r m i s s i v e b y a r c h c o n s e r v a t i v e s ) . T h e s e c o n d e d i t i o nw a s e d i t e d b y S i r E rn e s t G o w e r s , w h o , t o F o w l e r ' s o r i g i n a l e n -t r y fo r an d i n t h e f i r s t e d i t i o n , a d d e d t h i s :

That it is a solecism to begin a sentence with and is a faintly lin-gering superstition, (p. 29)To t h e o r i g i n a l e n t ry fo rbut, h e a d d e d " s eeand. S o m e i n e x p e -r i e n c e d w r i t e r s d o b e g i n t o o m a n y s e n t e n c e s w i t h an d, bu tt h a t i s a n e r ro r n o t i n g r a m m a r b u t o f s t y l e .

S o m e i n s e c u re w r i t e r s a l s o t h i n k t h e y s h o u l d n o t b e g i n as e n t e n c e w i t h because. No t th i s :

u s a g e , a r e r e l i a b l e c o n s e r v a t i v e s ( s o m e a r e b o t h ) . A c h e c k m a r ki n d i c a t e s a c c e p t a b l e S t a n d a r d E n g l i s h , d e s p i t e w h a t s o m e g r a m -m a r i a n s c l a i m .

T h i s f o l k l o r e a b o u t because a p p e a r s i n n o h a n d b o o k , b u t i t i sg a i n i n g c u r r e n c y . It p r o b a b l y s t e m s f r o m a d v ic e a i m e d a ta v o i d i n g s e n t e n c e F R A G M E N T S l ike th i s one :

The plan was rejected .B e c a u s e i t was incomplete.T h i s r u l e a b o u t because h a s n o b a s i s i n g r a m m a r . B u t o d d l ye n o u g h , i t d o e s r e f l e c t a s m a l l stylistic t r u t h . I n Le s s o n 5, w e



I f you pu t a s ince -c lause a t the en d o f a s e n t e n c e , t h e s e n t e n c eends weakly .It is easy for those inclined to look down on others to think thatgrammatical "errors" indicate mental or moral def ic iency, sinceour language seems to reflect our quality of mind.

T h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s p r i n c ip l e , b u t i t s g e n e r a l l ys o u n d .

2. U s e t h e RE L ATIVE PRONOUN thatnot whichfor RESTRICTIVECLAUSES." Allegedly, no t th is:

Re v e r s e t h a t o r d e r a n d y o u g e t a m i ld ly a w k w a r d s e n t e n c e :B e c au se some writers are seized by the idea that writing is goodonly when it 's free of errors that only a grammarian can explain,they write graceless prose.

W h e n abecause-clause i n t r o d u c e s n e w in f o r ma t io n , a s i t u s u a l l ydoes , i t sho uld n o t beg in a sen te nce , bu t end i t . Tha t , however , i sno t a ru le o f g ra m m ar ; i t i s a p r inc i p le o f s ty le .I f y o u w a n t t o begin a s e n t e n c e w i th a c l a u s e e x p r e s s in gc a u s a t i o n , b e s u r e y o u r r e a d e r i s f a m i l i a r w i th i t s s u b s t a n c e .T h e n i n t r o d u c e t h e c l a u s e n o t w i t h because b u t w i t h since, b e -c a u s e since imp l i e s t h a t t h e r e a d e r a l r e a d y k n o w s w h a t i s i nthe c lause :

l o o k a t a p r i n c ip l e o f st y l e t h a t t e ll s u s t o a r r a n g e t h e e l e m e n t so f s e n t e n c e s s o t h a t i n f o r m a t io n a l r e a d y p a r t o f a r e a d e r ' sk n o w l e d g e c o m e s before i n f o r m a t i o n l es s f a m i l i a r t o t h er e a d e r ( f o r a q u i c k s u mma r y , s k im p p . 7 6 - 7 7 ) . I t i s a f a c t o fE n g l i s h s t y l e t h a t a S U B O R D I N A T E C L A U S E b e g i n n i n g w i t hbecause u s u a l l y i n t r o d u c e s n e w i n f o r m a t i o n :



Yet jus t a few sentences befo re , Barzu n himse l f (one of o urmost eminent inte l lec tua l hi s tor ians and c r i t i cs of s tyle ) hadasserted,Us[e]that with defining [i.e. restrictive] clauses except when stylis-t ic reasons in terpose.

( In the sentence quoted above , no such reasons inte rpose . )A rule has no force wh en som eone as emin ent as B arzunasserts i t on one page, then violates i t on the next , and his"error" i s never caught , not by hi s edi tors , not by hi s proof-readers , not even by Barz un himse l f .This "rule" is relat ively new. It appeared in 1906 in Henryand Franc is Fowler ' s The King's English (Oxford Universi tyPress ; repr inted as an Oxford Univers i ty Press paperback,1973) . The Fowlers thought tha t the random var ia t ion be-t we e n that a n d which to begin a restrict ive clause was messy,so they jus t asser ted tha t hen cefor th w ri te rs should (wi th so meexceptions) l imitwhich tono nrestrictive clauses.A nonre s t r ic t ive c lause , you m ay reca ll , descr ibes a n ou nna m i ng a r e fe re n t tha t you c a n i de n t i fy una m bi guous l y wi t h -out the informat ion in tha t c lause . For example ,

A com pan y can have only one f i rs t bankrup tcy, so we can un-a mbi guous l y i de n t ify t he ba nkrup t c y m e nt i one d w i t hou t t heinformat ion in the fol lowing c lause . We therefore ca l l tha tc lause nonrestrictive, becau se it does not fur th er "res t r ic t " ori de n t ify wha t t he no un na me s , its first bankruptcy. In tha t con-text, we pu t a com ma b efore the mod i fying c lause and beg in i twi thwhich. That rule i s based on hi s tor ica l and con temp oraryusage.But , claimed the Fowlers, for restrict ive clauses, we shoulduse no twhich bu t only that: For example,

Since ABCO presumably makes many products , the c lause thatmade millions "res tr ic ts" the prod uct to only the one tha t m ademil l ions, and so, said the Fowlers, i t should begin with that.Franc is died in 1918, but Henry cont inued the fami ly t ra -di t ion wi th A Dictionary of Modem English Usage. In tha t



N o o n e u s e s fewer w i t h m a s s n o u n s (fewer dirt) b u t e d u c a t e dw r i t e r s o f t e n u s e less w i t h c o u n t a b l e p l u r a l n o u n s (lessresources).

4. "Use since a n d while t o r e f e r o n l y t o t i m e , n o t t o m e a nbecause o r although. M o s t c a r e f u l w r i t e r s u s e since w i t h am e a n i n g c l o s e t o because b u t , a s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , w i t h a na d d e d s e n s e o f ' W h a t f o l l o w s I a s s u m e y o u a l r e a d y k n o w ' :

l a n d m a r k w o r k , h e d i s c u s s e d t h e f i n e r p o i n t s o f which a n dthat, t h e n a d d e d t h i s :

Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idleto pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the bestwriters, (p. 635)T h a t w i s t f u l o b s e r v a t i o n w a s k e p t i n t h e s e c o n d e d i t i o n a n da g a i n i n t h e t h i rd . (F o r a n o t h e r a l l e g e d l y i n c o r r e c t which, seet h e p a s s a g e b y W a l t e r O n g o n p . 1 7 . )

I c o n fe s s I f o l l o w F o w l e r ' s a d v i c e , n o t b e c a u s e a r e s t r i c t i v ewhich i s a n e r ro r , b u t b e c a u s e that h a s a s o f t e r s o u n d . I d os o m e t i m e s c h o o s e a which w h e n it 's w i t h i n a w o rd o r t w o o f athat, b e c a u s e I d o n ' t l i k e t h e s o u n d o f t w o thats c l o s e t o g e t h e r :

3. "Usefewer w i t h n o u n s y o u c o u n t , less w i t h n o u n s y o u c a n -n o t . " Al leged ly no t th i s :

N o r d o m o s t c a r e f u l w r i t e r s r e s t r i c t while t o i t s t e m p o ra l s e n s e(We'll wait w hile you eat), b u t a l s o u s e i t w i t h a m e a n i n g c l o s et o 'I a s s u m e y o u k n o w w h a t I s t a t e i n t h i s c l a u s e , b u t w h a t Ias ser t in the nex t wi l l qua l i fy i t ' :

I n b o t h c a s e s , p u t t h e c l a u s e f i r s t i n a s e n t e n c e , b e c a u s e b o t hsince a n d while i m p l y t h a t t h e r e a d e r a l r e a d y k n o w s w h a t i s i n



a c lause they int roduce . When you put such a c lause las t , thesentence end s weakly:Asbestos should be removed carefully, since it is dangerous.We disagree about the place, while we agree on a date.

Here's the point: If wri te rs wh om we judg e to be comp e-tent regularly violate some al leged rule and most carefulreaders never not ice , then the rule has no force . In thosecases, i t is not wri ters who should change their usage, butg ra m ma r i a n s wh o shou l d c ha nge t he i r ru l e s .

Elegant OptionsThese next "rules" complement the Rea l Rules : ca l l them ElegantOptions. Most readers do not not ice when you observe a Rea lRule, but does when you violates i t (l ike that). On the other hand,few readers not ice when you viola te one of these opt iona l rules ,but some do when you observe i t , because doing so makes yourwri t ing seem jus t a bi t more se l f -consc ious ly form al .

1. "Don't split infinitives." Pur i s t s c onde mn Dwi ght Ma c Don-ald, a l inguist ic archconservat ive, for this sentence (my em-phasis in al l the examples that fol low).

They would requi rethey wanted to conceal s l ightly the fa ct . . .

Infini t ives are now spl i t so often that when you avoid spl i t t ingone , careful readers may think you a re t rying to be espec ia l lycorrec t , whether you a re or not .2. "Usewhom a s the OBJECT of a verb or preposi t ion." Puri s t swou ld con dem n W ill iam Zinsser for thi s use of who:



They would ins i s t onanoth er que st ion wil l occur to you: "Forw h o m am I writing?"

Most readers t ake whom as a sign of self-conscio us correct-ness, so when a wri ter uses i t incorrect ly, that choice is proba-bly a sign of insecuri ty, as in this sentenc e:The committee must decidew h o m should be promoted.

In tha t sentence , whom is the sub ject of the verb should bepromoted, so i t sho uld bewho. Here is an actual rule: use whowhen i t is the subject of a verb in its own clause; u se whomonly when i t is an object in i ts own clause.

3. "Don't end a sente nce wit h a preposi t ion." Pur i s ts c ond e mnSir Ernest Gowers, edi tor of Fowler 's second edit ion, for this:



A p re p o s i t i o n c a n , h o w e v e r , c a n e n d a s e n t e n c e w e a k l y ( s e ep p . 1 6 6 -1 6 7 ) . G e o rg e O rw e l l m a y h a v e c h o s e n t o e n d t h i s n e x ts e n t e n c e w i t h from t o m a k e a s ly p o i n t a b o u t E n g l i s h g r a m -m a r , b u t I s u s p e c t i t j u s t e n d e d u p t h e r e ( a n d n o t e t h e " i n c o r -r e c t " which):

[The defense of the English language] has nothing to do with . . .the setting up of a "standard English" w h i c h must never be de-par ted from.George Orwell, Politics and the E nglish Language

T h i s w o u l d h a v e b e e n l e s s a w k w a r d a n d m o r e e m p h a t i c :We do not defend English jus t to create a "s tandard English"whose rules we must always obey.

4. "Use the s ingular w i th none an d any. None a n d an y wereo r i g i n a l l y s i n g u l a r , b u t t o d a y m o s t w r i t e r s u s e t h e m a sp l u r a l , s o i f y o u u s e t h e m a s s i n g u l a r , s o m e r e a d e r s w i l l n o -t i c e . T h e s e c o n d s e n t e n c e b e l o w i s a b i t m o r e f o r m a l t h a n t h ef i r s t :

and in s i s t on th i s :. . . a s t ickw i t h w h i c h to beat the official.

Th e f i r s t i s c o r r e c t ; t h e s e c o n d i s m o r e fo rm a l . (A g a i n, s e e t h eO n g p a s s a g e o n p . 1 7 .) A n d w h e n y o u c h o o s e t o s h i f t b o t h t h ep r e p o s i t i o n a n d i t s whom t o t h e l e f t , y o u r s e n t e n c e s e e m sm o r e f o r m a l y e t . C o m p a r e :

W h e n y o u a r e u n d e r c l o s e s c ru t i n y , y o u m i g h t c h o o s e t oo b s e rv e a ll t h e s e o p t i o n a l r u l e s . O rd i n a r i l y , t h o u g h , t h e y a r ei g n o re d b y m o s t c a r e f u l w r i t e r s , w h i c h i s t o s a y t h e y a r e n o tru l e s a t a ll , b u t r a t h e r s t y l i s t i c c h o i c e s t h a t c r e a t e a s l i g h t l yf o r m a l t o n e . I f y o u a d o p t th e w o r s t - c a s e a p p r o a c h a n d o b -s e rv e t h e m a l l , a l l t h e t i m e w e l l , p r i v a t e v i r t u e s a r e t h e i ro w n r e w a r d .



Like be c a me a S U B O R D I N A T I N G C O N J U N C T I O N in the e ighteenthc e n t ury whe n wr i t e r s be ga n t o d rop as f rom t he c on j unc t i vep h r a s e like as, leaving jus t like as the conjunc t ion. Thisprocess is cal led elision, a common l inguis t ic change . I t i stel l ing that the edi tor of the second edit ion of Fowler (theone favo red by conserva t ives) de le ted like fo ras f rom Fowler ' sl ist of "Il l i teracies" and moved i t into the category of "SturdyIndefens ibles . "2. "Don't use hopefully to m ean 'I hop e. '" Not this:

H obgoblinsFor some unknown reason, a handful of i t ems has become the ob-jec t of par t icula r ly zea lous abu se . There ' s no ex pla ining why; no neof them interferes with clari ty or concision.

1 . "N ever us e like fo ras or as if. Not this:

This "rule" dates from the middle of the twentieth century. Ithas no bas i s in logic or grammar and para l le l s the usage ofother words tha t no one abuses , words such as candidly,frankly, sadly, a n d happily:

3. "Don't use finalize to m ean ' f inish' or 'com plete . '" Butfinalize doesn' t mean just ' f inish. ' I t means ' to clean up the lastfew detai ls , ' a sense captured by no other word. Moreover, i fwe think finalize i s bad becau se -ize is ugly, we would have tore jec t nationalize, synthesize, a n d rationalize, a long wi th hun-dreds of other useful words .

4. "Don't use impact as a verb, as in The survey impacted ourstrategy. Use it only as a noun, as in The survey had an



(Even so , th is i s a ru le wor th fo l lowing . )6. "Never ever use irregardless f o r regardless o r irrespective.

H o w e v e r a r b i t r a r y t h i s r u l e i s , f o l l o w i t . U s e irregardless a n ds o m e w i l l j u d g e y o u i r r e d e e m a b le .Some Words That Attract Special AttentionA f e w w o r d s a r e s o o f t e n c o n f u s e d w i th o th e r s t h a t c a r e f u l r e a d e r sa r e l i k e ly t o n o t e y o u r c a r e f u l u s a g e w h e n y o u c o r r e c t l y d i s t i n -g u i s h t h e m f l a u n t a n d flout f o r e x a m p l e . W h e n y o u u s e t h e mc o r r e c t l y , t h o s e w h o t h in k t h e d i f f e r e n c e ma t t e r s a r e l i k e ly t o n o t eth a t a t l e a s tyo u k n o w t h a t flaunt m e a n s 't o d i s p l a y c o n s p i c u o u s l y 'a n d t h a t flout m e a n s 't o s c o r n a r u l e o r s t a n d a r d . ' T h u s if y o uc h o s e t o s c o r n t h e r u l e a b o u t flaunt a n d flout, y o u w o u ld n o t f l o u tyo ur f launting i t , b ut f launt yo ur f louting i t . H er e ar e so m e othe rs:

aggravate me ans 'to ma ke worse. ' It does not me an to 'annoy. ' Youcan aggravate an injury but not a person.anticipate me ans 'to prep are for a contingency. ' It does not me an just'expect. ' You anticipate a question when you prepare its answerbefore it 's asked; if you know it 's coming but don't prepare, youonly expect it.anxious me ans 'unea sy' not 'eager. ' You're eager to leave if you'rehappy to. You're anxious about leaving if it makes you nervous.blackmail mean s ' to extor t by threatening to reveal damaging infor-mation. ' It does not mean simply 'coerce. ' One country cannotblackmail anoth er with nuclear weapons when i t only threatens touse them.cohort mean s 'a group who a ttends on someone. ' It does not mean asingle accompanying person. When Pr ince Charles marr ied hisfriend she became his 'consort'; his hangers-on are still his cohort.comprise m eans 'to include all parts in a single unit. ' It is not synony-mous wi th constitute. The a lphabet is not comprised by its letters;

impact on our strategy. Impact h a s b e e n a v e r b f o r 4 0 0 y e a r s ,b u t o n s o me p e o p l e , h i s t o r i c a l e v id e n c e h a s n o n e .5 . "Do n' t m o di f y a bso lut e wo rds such a s perfect, unique, fi-nal, o r complete w i t h very, m ore, quite, a nd so o n ." T ha tr u l e w o u ld h a v e d e p r iv e d u s o f t h i s f a mi l i a r s e n t e n c e :



i t comprises them. Let ters constitute the alphabet , which is thusconst i tu ted by them.continuous mea ns 'without in terrupt ion . ' I t is not synonym ous withcontinual, whic h means an activ ity throug h t ime, with in terrup -tions. If you continuously in terrup t someone, that person wil lnever say a word because your interruption will never stop. If youcontinually in terrupt , you let the o ther person fin ish a sentencefrom t ime to t ime.disinterested me ans 'neutral . ' I t does not mea n 'uninteres ted . ' Ajudge should be disinterested in the outcome of a case, but not un-interested in it . (Incidentally, the original meaning of disinterestedwas ' to be uninteres ted . ' )enormity me ans 'hugely bad. ' I t does not me an 'enormo us. ' In pri-vate, a belch might be enormous, but at a s tate funeral , i t wouldalso be an enormity.fortuitous me ans 'by chance. ' I t does not me an ' fortunate. ' You arefortunate when you fortu i tously p ick the r ight number in thelottery.fulsome me ans 'sickeningly excessive.' It does not me an just 'muc h.'We all enjoy praise, except when it becomes fulsome.notorious me ans 'known for bad behavior.' I t does not mea n 'fa-mous. ' Frank Sinatra was a famous s inger but a notorious bul ly .Th e s e d a y s o n l y a f e w r e a d e r s s ti l l c a r e a b o u t t h e s e d i s t i n c -t i o n s , b u t t h e y m a y b e j u s t t h o s e w h o s e j u d g m e n t c a r r i e s s p e c i a l

w e i g h t w h e n i t m a t t e r s t h e m o s t . I t t a k e s o n l y a f e w m i n u t e s t ol e a rn t o u s e t h e s e w o r d s i n w a y s t h a t t e s t i f y t o y o u r p r e c i s i o n , s o i tm a y b e w o r t h d o i n g s o, e s p e c i a l l y if y o u a l s o t h i n k t h e i r d i s t i n c -t i o n s a r e w o r t h p r e s e r v i n g .

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , y o u g e t n o p o i n t s f o r c o r r e c t l y d i s t i n -g u i s h i n g imply a n d infer, principal a n d principle, accept a n dexcept, capital a n d capitol, affect a n d effect, proceed a n d precede,discrete a n d discreet. Th a t ' s j u s t e x p e c t e d o f a s c h o o l e d w r i t e r .M o s t c a r e f u l r e a d e r s a l s o n o t i c e w h e n a L a t i n a t e o r G r e e k p l u r a ln o u n i s u s e d a s a s in g u l a r , s o y o u m i g h t w a n t t o k e e p t h e s es t r a i g h t , t o o :



T h e r e a r e , h o w e v e r , t w o p r o b l e m s w i t h m a k i n g p r o n o u n sa g r e e w i t h t h e i r r e f e r e n t s .

F i r s t , d o w e u s e a s i n g u l a r o r p l u r a l p r o n o u n w h e n r e f e r r i n gt o a n o u n t h a t i s s i n g u l a r i n g r a m m a r b u t p l u r a l i n m e a n i n g ? F o re x a m p l e , w h e n w e r e f e r t o s i n g u l a r n o u n s s u c h a s a group, com-mittee, staff, administration, a n d s o o n , d o w e u s e a s i n g u l a r o rp l u r a l v e r b ? S o m e w r i t e r s u s e a s i n g u l a r v e r b a n d p r o n o u n w h e nt h e g ro u p a c t s a s a s i n g l e e n t i t y :

B u t t h e y u s e a p l u r a l v e r b a n d p r o n o u n w h e n i t s m e m b e r s a c t i n -d i v i d u a l l y :

Th e s e d a y s p l u r a l s a r e i r r e g u l a r l y u s e d i n b o t h s e n s e s ( b u t t h ep l u r a l i s t h e ru l e i n B r i t i s h En g l i s h ) .

W e a l s o e x p e c t t h e i r p r o n o u n s t o a g r e e w i t h a n t e c e d e n t s . N o tth i s :Ear ly e f f o r t s to oppose the hydrogen bomb fa i l ed because itignored pol i t ical issues . N o o n e wanted to expose t h e m s e l v e s toan t i -Communis t hys te r ia .

Bu t th i s :

Here's the point: Y o u c a n ' t p r e d i c t g o o d g r a m m a r o r c o r -rec t u sage by log ic o r genera l ru le . You have to l ea rn the ru leso n e -b y -o n e a n d a c c e p t t h e f a c t t h a t s o m e of t h e m , p ro b a b l ym o s t o f t h e m , a r e a rb i t r a ry a n d i d i o s y n c ra t i c .

A P R O B L E M : P R O N O U N S A N D G E N D E R B I A SPronouns and Their ReferentsW e e x p e c t l i t e r a t e w r i t e r s t o m a k e v e rb s a g re e w i t h s u b j e c t s :



B u t t h a t r u l e r a i s e s t h e p ro b l e m o f b i a s e d l a n g u a g e .Gender and Biased LanguageC o m m o n s e n s e d e m a n d s t h a t w e d o n ' t g r a t u i t o u s l y o f f e n d r e a d -e r s , b u t i f w e r e j e c the a s a g e n e r i c p r o n o u n b e c a u s e i t' s b i a s e d a n dthey b e c a u s e s o m e r e a d e r s c o n s i d e r i t u n g r a m m a t i c a l , w e a r e l e f tw i t h a l o t o f b a d c h o i c e s . S o m e w r i t e r s c h o o s e a c l u m s y he or she;o t h e r s c h o o s e a w o r s e he/she o r e v e n s/he.

If a writer ignores the ethnici ty of his or her readers , s /he may re-spond in ways the writer would not expect to words that to h im orh er are innocent of bias.S o m e w r i t e r s s u b s t i t u t e p l u r a l s f o r s i n g u l a r s :

S e c o n d , w h a t p r o n o u n d o w e u s e , it o r they, t o r e f e r t o p r o n o u n ss u c h a s someone, everyone, no one a n d t o s i n g u l a r c o m m o n n o u n st h a t s i g n a l n o g e n d e r : teacher, doctor, student? W e c a s u a l l y u s e they:

Everyone knows they mus t answer fo rthe ir act ions .W h e n a person is on drugs, it is hard to help them.

F o r m a l u s a g e r e q u i r e s a s i n g u l a r p r o n o u n :

B u t i n t h a t s e n t e n c e , they, their, a n d them a r e c o n f u s i n g , b e c a u s et h e y c a n r e f e r t o d i f f e r e n t r e f e r e n t s , e i t h e r w r i t e r s o r r e a d e r s . A n dt o t h e c a r e f u l e a r, a s e n t e n c e w i t h s i n g u l a r n o u n s a n d p r o n o u n ss e e m s a s h a d e m o r e p r e c i s e t h a n o n e w i t h p l u r a l n o u n s a n d p r o -n o u n s . C o m p a r e t h e s e n t e n c e a b o v e w i t h t h i s o n e :

When awriterignoresh isrea ders ethnicity,his readermay respond inways thath emight n ot expect to words tha t are toh iminnoc ent of bias.W e c a n t r y a f i r s t p e r s o n we,

B u t we c a n a l s o b e a m b i g u o u s . W e c o u l d a ls o t r y i m p e r s o n a l a b -s t r a c t i o n , b u t t h a t c r e a t e s i t s o w n p r o b l e m :

Fai lure to consider ethnici ty may lead to unexpected responses towords considered innocent of b ias .



Some cla im that such compromises lead to lazy imprecis ion .Whatever the future, we have a choice now, and that 's not a badthing, because ou r choices def ine who w e are .S U M M I N G U PWe must write correctly, but if in defining correctness we ignorethe difference between fact and folklore, we r isk overlooking whatis real ly impor tantthe choices that make our wr i t ing dense andwordy or clear and concise. We are not precise when we merelyget r ight the whiches and thats and avoid finalize and hopefully.Many who obsess on such details are oblivious to this more seri-ous kind of imprecision:

Too precise a speci f icat ion of informat ion processing requi rementsincurs the r i sk of Overest imat ion resul t ing in unused capaci ty or inef-f icient use of cost ly resources or of underest imat ion leading to inef-fect iveness or o ther ineff iciencies .That means,

Finally, we ca n a lternately us e he a nd she, as I have. But that'snot a perfect solution either , because some readers f ind she as styl-istically intrusive as he/she. A reviewer in the New York Times, forexample , wondered what to make of an author whom the reviewercharged wi th a t tempt ing tor ight h i s tory ' s wrongs to women by refer r ing to random examples as"she," as in "Ask a par t icle physici s t what happens when a quark i sknocked out of a proton, and she will tel l you . . . ," which strikes thisr eader as odd l y pa t ron i z i ng t o wo men .

(We might wonder how it str ikes women who happen to be part iclephysicists.)For years to come, we'l l have a problem with singular genericpronouns, and to some readers , any solu t ion wi l l be awkward. Isuspect that eventually we will accept the plural they as a correctsingular:

Both are grammat ical ly precise , but who would choose to readmore of the f irst?



I suspect that those who observe all the rules al l the t ime do sonot because they want to protect the integrity of the language orthe quali ty of our culture, but to assert a style of their own. Someof us are straightforward and plain speaking; others take pleasurein a bit of elegance, in a touch of fastidiously self-conscious"class." It is an impulse we should not scorn, so long as it is not apretext to d iscr iminate and is subordinate to the more impor tantmat ters to which we now turnthe choices that def ine not "goodgrammar," but clar i ty and grace.A L I S T O F R E A L A N D I M A G I N E D E R R O R SHere is a l ist of the "errors" covered in this and the followinglessons and the pages on which they are discussed.



U N D E R S T A N D I N G T H E P R I N C I P L E S O F CL A R IT YMaking JudgmentsWe have words enough to praise writ ing we l ike: clear, direct, con-cise, and more than enough to abuse wr i t ing we don ' t : unclear,indirect, abstract, dense, complex. We can use those words to dis-t inguish these two sentences:

la. The cause of our schools ' failure at teaching basic skills is notunders tanding the influence of cul tural background on learning.lb. Our schools have failed to teach basic skills beca use they do notunders tan d how cul tural background influences the way a chi ld learns .Most of us would call ( la) too complex, ( lb) clearer , more di-rect . But those words don't refer to anything in those sentences;they descr ibe how those sentences make us feel. When w e say that( la) is unclear, we mean tha t we have a hard t ime understandingit; we say it'sdense w h e n we struggle to read it.The problem is to understand what i s in those two sentencesthat makes us feel as we do. Only then can we r ise above our too-good understan ding of our own wr i t ing to know w hen ou r readerswill think i t needs revising. To do that , you have to know whatco unt s as a well-told story. (To pro fit from this lesson a nd th e nextthree, you must be able to identify V E R B S , S I M P L E S U B J E C T S , and

W H O L E S U B J E C T S . See the Glossary.)Telling Stories About Characters and Their ActionsThis story has a problem:

2a. Once upon a t ime, as a walk throug h the woods was taking placeon the part of Little Red Riding Ho od, the Wolf's ju m p ou t fro m be-hind a t ree occurred , causing her fr ight .We prefer something closer to this:

Most readers think (2b) tel ls i ts story more clearly than (2a) , be-cause i t follows two principles: I ts ma in chara cters are subjects of verbs. Those verbs express specif ic actions.



Those two pr inc iples seem s imple , but they need someexplana t ion.Principle of Clarity 1: Make m ain ch aracters s ubjects . Lookat the subjects in (2a). The simple subjects (boldfaced) are no t themain characters (i tal icized):

2a. Once upon a time, as aw a l k through the woods was taking placeon the part ofLittleRed Riding Hood, theWolf sjumpout from be-hind a t ree occurred , causing her fright.The subjec t s in tha t sentence do not name i t s charac te rs ; theyna me a c t i ons e xpre s se d i n t he a bs t ra c t NOUNS walk a n d jump:

The whole subjec t of occurred does have a charac te r in it : theWolf's jump, b u t the Wolf i s only a t tached to the s imple subjec tjump; it is not the subjec t .Cont ras t those abs t rac t subjec t s wi th the concre te subjec t s(i tal icized and boldfaced) in (2b):2b. Once upon a t ime,Little Red Riding Hood was walking throughthe woods, when the Wolfjum ped ou t from behind a t ree and fright-ened her.

The subjec t s and the main charac te rs a re now the same words:

Principle of Clari ty 2: Make important actions verbs. N o wlook at how th e act ion s and v erbs differ in (2a): i ts act ion s are n otexpressed in verbs but in abs t rac t nouns (ac t ions a re boldfaced;verbs are capital ized):

2a. Once upon a time, as awalk through the woods W A S T A K I N G placeon the par t of Little Red Riding Hood, th e Wolfsj u m pout from behinda tree O C C U R R E D , causing herfright.



Here's the point: In (2a), the sentence tha t seems word yand indi rec t , the two main charac te rs . Li t t l e Red RidingHoo d an d the Wolf , a reno t subjec t s , and the i r ac t ions walk,jump, an d frightare no t verbs. In (2b) the more direct sen-tence , those two main charac te rs ar e subjec t s and the i r mainac t ions ar e verbs. That 's why we prefer (2b).

Fairy Tales and Writing for Grown-upsWri t ing in col lege or on the job may seem dis tant f rom fa i rytales, but i t 's not , because most sentences tel l stories. Comparethese two:

3a. The Federal is ts ' argument in regard to the destabi l izat ion ofgovernment by popular democracy was based on their bel ief in thetendency of factions to further their self-interest at the expense of thecommon good .

Note how vague the verbs a re : was taking, occurred. In (2b), thec learer sentence , the verbs nam e spec i f ic ac tions :

We can ana lyze those two sen tences as we did the ones abo ut Li t-t l e Red Riding H ood and the Wolf .Senten ce (3a) fee ls dens e for two reasons . Fi rs t , i t s cha rac te rsare not subjects. Its simple subject isargument, bu t the chara c te rsareFederalists, popu lar d emocra cy, govern ment, a n dfactions (char-acters are i tal icized; the simple subject is boldfaced):3a . The Federalists' a r g u m e n t in regard to the destabilization ofgovernment bypopular democracy was based on theirbelief in the ten-dency of factions to fu r ther their self-interest at the expense of thecommon good.



Second, m ost of the ac t ions (boldfaced) a re not verbs (capi ta l -ized) , but ra ther abs t rac t nouns (a l so boldfaced):3a. The Federal is ts ' a r g u m e n t in regard to the des tab i l i zat ion ofgovernmen t by popu la r democracy W A S B A S E D on their be l i e f in thet e n d e n c y of fa cti on s to FURTHER th eir self -inte rest at th e exp ense ofthe common good .

Notice the long whole subject of (3a) and how l i t t le meaning is ex-pressed by i t s main verb was based:

Readers th ink (3b) is c learer for two reaso ns: f i rs t , the a c t ions(boldfaced) are verbs (capital ized):3b. T he F ed er ali sts ARGUED th at po pu la r d em oc ra cy DESTABILIZEDgov ern me nt, be ca use they BELIEVED th at fac tio ns TENDED TOFURTHERtheir self-interest at the expense of the common good.

Second, i ts characters (i tal icized) ar esubjec t s (bo ldfaced):3b. The Federalists argued that popular democracy destabilizedgovernment , because they believed that factions tended to fur the rtheir self-interest at the expense of the common good.Note that al l those subjects are short and specific:

In the rest of this lesson, we look at act ions and verbs; in thenext , a t charac te rs an d su bjec t s .



R e a d e r s w i l l t h i n k y o u r w r i t i n g i s d e n s e i f y o u u s e l o t s o f a b -s t r a c t n o u n s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e d e r i v e d f r o m v e r b s a n d A D J E C T I V E S ,n o u n s e n d i n g i n -tion, -men t, -ence, a n d so o n , especially when youmake those abstract nouns the subjects of verbs.

A n o u n d e r i v e d f ro m a v e r b o r a d j e c t i v e h a s a t e c h n i c a l n a m e :nominalization. T h e w o r d i l l u s t ra t e s i t s m e a n i n g : W h e n w e n o m i -n a l i z e nominalize, w e c r e a t e t h e n o m i n a l i z a t i o n nominalization.H e re a r e a f e w e x a m p l e s :

W e c a n a l s o n o m i n a l i z e a v e rb b y a d d i n g -ing (m a k i n g i t aG E R U N D ) :

W e REQUEST th at yo u REVIEW th e da ta .O ur reques t is that youDO arev iew of the data.

V E R B S A N D A C T I O N SO u r p r i n c i p l e i s t h i s :

A sentence seems clear when its important actions are in verbs.Lo o k a t h o w s e n t e n c e s (4 a ) a n d (4 b ) e x p re s s t h e i r a c t i o n s . I n ( 4 a ) ,a c t i o n s (b o l d f a c e d ) a r e n o t v e rb s ( c a p i t a l i z e d ) ; t h e y a r e n o u n s :

4a. Our lack of data P R E V E N T E D evaluat ion of UN a c t i o n s intarget ing funds to areas most inn e e d of as s i s tance .In (4 b ) , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e a c t i o n s a r e a l m o s t a l l v e rb s :



No e lement of s tyle more charac te r izes turgid wr i t ing, wr i t ingtha t fee ls abs t ra c t , indi rec t , and d i f f icul t , th an lots of no m ina l iza -t ions , espec ia l ly as the sub jec ts of verbs .

Here's the point: In grad e school , we learned tha t subjec tsar e charac te r s (or "doers") and tha t verbs are actions. That 'sof ten t rue :

We c a n move c ha r a c t e r s a nd a c t i on s a r oun d in a s e n t e nc e ,a nd sub j e c t s a nd ve r bs don ' t ha ve t o na me a ny pa r t i c u l a rkind of th ing a t a l l . But when in most of your sentences youma tc h c ha r a c t e r s t o sub j e c t s a nd a c t i ons w i th ve r bs , r e a de r sare l ikely to thin k you r prose i s c lear , d i rec t , and readab le .

Exercise 3.1Analyze the subject/character and verb/action in these sentences:

There is opposit ion among many voters to nuclear power p lants basedon a belief of their threat to human health.Many voters oppose nuclear power p lants because they believe thatsuch plants threaten human health.

Exercise 3.2If you aren 't sure whethe r you can distingu ish verbs, adjectives, andnominalizations, turn these verbs and adjectives into nominaliza-tions, and the nominalizations into adjectives and verbs. Remem-ber that some verbs and nominalizations have the same form:

Poverty predictably CAUses social problems.Poverty is a predictable cause of social problems.



Exercise 3.3Create sentences using verbs and adjectives from Exercise 3.2. Thenrewrite them using the corresponding nominalizations (keep themeaning the same). For example, using suggest, discuss, andcareful,write:

I SU G G E STthat we DISCUSSthe issue CAREFULLY.Then rewrite that sentence into its nominalized form:

Mysuggestionisthat our discussion oftheissuebedone with care.Only when you see how a clear sentence can be made unclear willyou understand why it seemed clear in the first place.

D I A G N O S I S A N D R E V I S I O NYou can use the pr inc iples of verbs as ac t ions and subjec ts asc ha r a c t e r s t o e xp la in w hy your r e a de r s j udge your p r ose a s t he ydo . Bu t mor e impor t a n t , you c a n a l so use t he m to i de n t i f y se n-tences tha t your readers would want you to revise , and then revisethem. Revis ion i s a three-s tep process : d iagnose , ana lyze , r ewr i te .

1. Diagnosea . Igno r ing sho r t ( four - or f ive-word) int ro du c to ry phr ases ,under l ine the f i r s t seven or e ight words in each sentence .

The outsourcing of high-tech work to Asia by corporationsmeans the loss of jobs for many A merican workers.b . Then look for two things:

Y ou und e r l i ne a bs t r a c t nou ns a s s imple sub j e c t s ( bo ld -faced) .The outsourcing of high-tech work to Asia by corpo rationsmeans the loss of jobs for many Am erican workers.



Y o u r e a d s e v e n , e i g h t , o r m o r e w o rd s b e f o r e g e t t i n g t o averb .

The outsourcing of high-tech work to Asia by corporations (10words) m e a n s the loss of jobs for many American workers.2. Analyze

a . D e c i d e w h o y o u r m a i n c h a r a c t e r s a r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y f l e s h -a n d -b l o o d (m o re a b o u t t h i s i n t h e n e x t l e s s o n ) .

The outsourcing of high-tech work to Asia by corporat ionsmea ns the loss of jobs for many American w orkers .b . T h e n l o o k f o r t h e a c t i o n s t h a t t h o s e c h a r a c t e r s p e r f o r m , e s-p e c i a l ly a c t i o n s i n n o m i n a l i z a t i o n s , t h o s e a b s t r a c t n o u n s

d e r i v e d f ro m v e rb s .The o u t s o u r c i n g of high-tech work to Asia by corporationsmeans the l o s sof jobs for many Am erican w orkers .

3. Rewritea . If t h e a c t i o n s a r e n o m i n a l i z a t i o n s , m a k e t h e m v e r b s .

Some Common PatternsY o u c a n q u i c k l y s p o t a n d r e v i s e f i v e c o m m o n p a t t e rn s o fn o m i n a l i z a t i o n s .

1. The nom inal izat ion i s the subject of an empty verb su chas be, seems, has, etc.:The in tent ion of the committee is to audit the records,

a . C h a n g e t h e n o m i n a l i z a t i o n t o a v e r b :

c . R e w r i t e t h e s e n t e n c e w i t h S U B O R D I N A T I N G C O N J U N C T I O N S l ikebecause, i f , when, although, why, how, whether, o r that.



3. One nominal ization i s the subject of an empty verb and asecond nomina l i za t ion fo l l ows an empty verb:O ur l o s s in salesWAS a result of theire x p a n s i o n of outlets,

a. Revise the nominalizat ions into verbs:

b. Find a char ac te r tha t would be the subjec t of tha t verb:The in tent ion of t h e c o m m i t t e e is to audit the records.

c . M ake tha t cha rac te r the sub jec t of the new v erb:

2 . The nomina l i za t ion fo l l ow s an empty verb:Theagency C O N D U C T E D a n inves t igat ion into the matter.

a . Chan ge the nomina l iza t ion to a verb:

b. Ident i fy the charac te rs tha t would be the subjec t s of thoseverbs:Our loss in sales was a result ofthe ir expansion of outlets.

c . M ake those charac te rs subjec t s of those verbs :

d. Link the new C L A U S E S with a logical connection: To express simple cause:because, since, when To express cond i t iona l cause : i f , provided that, so long as To cont rad ic t expec ted causes : though, although, unless



5. T w o o r t h r e e n o m i n a l i z a t i o n s i n a r o w a r e j o i n e d b yp r e p o s i t i o n s :

We did arev iewof the evolu t ion of the brain,a . Tu rn t h e f i r s t n o m i n a l i z a t i o n i n t o a v e rb :

b . I d e n t i f y t h e c h a ra c t e r t h a t s h o u l d b e t h e s u b j e c t o f t h everb :

There is no need foro u r fur ther s tudy of th is problem .c . Ma k e t h a t c h a r a c t e r t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e v e rb :

4 . A n o m i n a l i z a t i o n f o l l o w s there is o r there are:There is no n e e d fo rour fu r t h e rs tudy of this problem.

a . C h a n g e t h e n o m i n a l i z a t i o n t o a v e rb :

b . E i t h e r l e a v e t h e s e c o n d n o m i n a l i z a t i o n a s i t i s o r t u rn i ti n t o a v e rb i n a c l a u s e b e g i n n i n g w i t h how o r why:



3. The logic of your sentences is clearer. When you nominalizeverbs , you have to link ac t ions wi th fuzz y prepo si t ions andphrases such as of, by, a n d on the part of. B ut whe n you useverbs , you l ink c lauses wi th prec i se subordina t ing conjunc-t ions such as because, although, a n d if:Our m ore effect ive presen tat ion of our s tudy resul ted in our suc-cess, despite an earlier start by others.

Some Happy ConsequencesWhen you consistent ly rely on verbs to express key act ions, yourreaders benef i t in many ways:

1. Your sentences are more concrete, because they wil l have con-cre te subjec t s and verbs . C omp are :ThereWAS an affi rmatived e c i s i o n fo r expans ion .

2. Your sentences a re more conc ise . When you use nomina l iza-t ions, you have to add art icles l ike a a n d the and preposi t ionssuch asof, by,a n d in . You don ' t need them when you use verbsand conju nc t ion s ( i t a l ic ized):

A rev i s ion of the p rog ram W I L L R E S U L T in i n c r e a s e s in oure f f i c i ency in the servicingof clients.

4. Your sentence tel ls a more coherent story. This next sequenceof ac tions di s tor t s the i r chronology. (The num ber s re fe r to thereal sequence of events.)Decisions 4 in regard to adminis trat ion5 of medicat ion despi te in-ability 2 of an i rrat ional pat ient appearing1 in a Trauma Center toprovide legal consent3 res t with the at tending physician alone.

When we revise those ac t ions into verbs and reorder them, weget a more coherent narra t ive :



A C O M M O N P R O B L E M S O L VE DY o u ' v e p r o b a b ly h a d t h i s e x p e r i e n c e : y o u t h in k y o u ' v e w r i t t e ns o m e t h i n g g o o d , b u t y o u r r e a d e r t h i n k s o t h e r w i s e . Y o u w o n d e rw h e th e r t h a t p e r s o n i s j u s t b e in g d i f f i c u l t , b u t y o u b i t e y o u rto n g u e a n d t r y t o f i x w h a t s h o u ld b e c l e a r t o a n y o n e w h o c a n r e a dD r . S e u s s . W h e n t h a t h a p p e n s t o me ( r e g u l a r l y , I m ig h t a d d ) , I a l -mo s t a lw a y s r e a l i z e e v e n tu a l l y th a t my r e a d e r s a r e r i g h t , t h a tt h e y s e e w h e r e my w r i t i n g n e e d s w o r k b e t t e r t h a n I d o .W h y a r e w e s o o f t e n r i g h t a b o u t t h e w r i t i n g o f o th e r s a n d s oo f t e n w r o n g a b o u t o u r o w n ? I t i s b e c a u s e w e a l l r e a d i n to o u r

Documents

280 - Joseph M. Williams Style Lessons in Clarity and Grace 9th Edition 2006 (1)