Wordiness is not Betterness

I’ve been seeing this a lot lately. You don’t need “event” here! Harrumpf.

Seems weather forecasters feel that they sound more important (or professional or esoteric) if they say “weather event.” But “storm,” “rain,” “tornado,” “high winds,” or whatever, all are more precise and convey more information with fewer words.

What about “impact” here? It hadn’t happened yet for “impact” back in the 1800’s, but in English, a lot of words can be either a noun or a verb (we have “a hit,” and “to hit,” for example), and many words can go either way. Back then, “impact” was still a noun.

I should add that a lot of grammarians don’t particularly like this feature of English, particularly when we already have perfectly good nouns and verbs in the lexicon. For instance, “to office” is pretty bad.

So remember the second rule of expository writing: be concise.

What Does It Take to be True?

I read the first sentence in the first panel of today’s Inkpen and it made me stop. When does saying something make it true? Could I think of an example? I’ll let you think about that while you look at the comic, the rest of which isn’t really germane to this post…

I thought of two examples before I read the rest of the comic. And let’s allow more verbs than just “say.”

I am writing this sentence.
You are reading this sentence.

Of course we could get philosophical here and you could point out that the first sentence was true only when I was writing it, and the second isn’t true until you read it.

So all right then; think of a better sentence! Share it in the comments.

Correct Whom!

No comment, it’s just a correct usage of “whom,” and I like to point out when someone does something right that a lot of people get wrong. Well, I confess I don’t think I expected it from the depicted  source…

Comic About Online Comments

Mr. Fitz is a comic about a teacher, and today’s comic is a riff on an all-too-common error. Hardly needs to be commented on.

You do get the mistakes, right???

Personification

Personification is when you have something not-human do something that only humans do. We can extend that definition from non-human/human to inanimate/living.

For example, the magma under a volcano is not alive. But we have this sentence from the Washington Post:

As pressure builds in the magma chamber, the magma seeks out weak spots in the surrounding rock, squeezing through the earth until it reaches a vent to the surface.

Magma doesn’t “seek out” anything; that’s something only living creatures do. You could be literal and say the magma is pushed through weak spots. (Or get rid of the passive, and say that the pressure forces the magma through the weak spots.)

Here’s another:

“Magma is going to look for the easiest way out,” she said.

See if you can change that second sentence to not have personification.

Here’s a lesson of sorts: Personification isn’t necessarily wrong. It can make a passage more vivid. Just be aware when you’re using personification. Rule of thumb: the more technical the writing, the less personification.

And of course, perhaps, a diagram might be even more vivid than personification.

Image result for kilauea volcano diagram

Looking for a Writing Job?

Apparently the Border Patrol need a couple writers. Here’s a sample of a paragraph from one of their press releases. It’s pretty bad:

On April 23, 2018, Border Patrol agents assigned to the Laredo Sector Marine Unit rescued two subjects in distress found struggling to stay afloat in the Rio Grande River near Zacate Creek. The two subjects were pulled on board the marine vessel and treated by an Emergency Medical Technician. The two subjects were determined to be from the country of Mexico.

Here’s a link to an article about some of the edits that this paragraph needs. Before you click the link, do an edit yourself, then see what the writer of the article came up with. (I’m resisting the temptation to do it myself.)

https://cis.org/North/Border-Patrol-Needs-Few-Good-Writers

Dis-, Mis-, and Un- Are Not Quite Synonyms

Our first root word today, class, is interested.

Uninterested means you don’t care.
Disinterested means you don’t have a stake in the outcome.
We don’t have misinterested as a word.

Here’s another root—used

Unused means something isn’t being used but it could be.
Misused means something is being used incorrectly, especially in a damaging way.
Disused means something has been abandoned; it is no longer used at all.

Where am I going with all these? I dunno; they just crossed my mind. Here’s the sentence, though, that got me started. It’s from Atlas Obscura, and it’s interesting, even though I already knew the subject matter:

He estimates that there are more than 100,000 miles of old, disused stone walls out there, or enough to circle the globe four times.

Remember Those Misused Introductory Adverbs?

I mentioned these guys before. More than once. People, even professional writers, sometimes start a sentence with an adverb when they should use an adjective or a phrase. Some examples of doing it wrong:

Firstly, we pour water into the bowl (how about just plain “first”?).
Reportedly, most kids don’t like peas (who’s doing the reporting? Identify the source!).
Supposedly, we can go play after dinner (how about “I suppose we can go play…).

You might remember the definition of adverbs as words that modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. Sometimes this can place an adverb first in a sentence, and here’s an example of that:

Equally important, MacLeish mobilized the Library of Congress for war.

So “equally” here tells how, or to what extent. Far better than “Equally importantly…”

Adverbs are often superfluous anyway. If you can leave an adverb out, leave it out.

And just to satisfy your curiosity, here’s a picture of Archibald MacLeish.

PS—Wouldn’t you know, I ran into a comic from Strange Brew on the subject. She calls it a sentence adverb, but same thing:

Few is More Than Two

We use “few” when we’re counting (and “less” when we’re measuring), But in a sentence like this, the correct term is “two.” “Few” implies three or more.

Older analog hygrometers come in various forms including hair tension hygrometers and sling psychrometers to name but a few.

I suppose the writer could harrumpf and point out that both are plurals, implying at least four, but I don’t think so. The topic is really about two things.

The sentence is from an Interesting Engineering article about weather instruments.

To give the writer credit, he (or she—the article is unsigned) uses correct terms later:

The former, as the name suggests, use animal hair (which is hygroscopic – water absorbing) to ‘detect’ changes in relative air humidity as the hairs length changes.

 The latter uses a set of two thermometers, one moistened and one dry, that are spun in the air.
Those, “former” and “latter,” are correct when you have two items. (When you have more than two, it’s “first” and “last.” We don’t have a special term for the items in the middle.)
If you’re interested in weather instruments, go read the article.
PS—toward the end of the article I ran into this sentence. It’s correct:
They tend to be equipped with instruments to measure local temperature, wind speeds, and barometric pressure to name but a few.

Don’t Know What to Think About this One

He makes a good point about the comma, though. The construction with the comma is called “direct address.” Without the comma, it’s “direct object.”

Got if off of Facebook, and now I can’t find it to give credit.