Nancy's sails.
Mario was on a wild-goose chase and ran out of steam.
When Job got the short end of the stick, it was the last straw.
A dyed-in-the-wool vegan doesn't cotton to meatballs.
Daisy and Tom didn't see eye to eye, so she gave him an earful.
Don't make too many demands on the reader's imagination. One image at a time, please.
References Required
Our writing would be awfully klutzy if we had to repeat ourselves whenever we referred to something already mentioned. Luckily, we don't have to. There are proxies we can substitute for words or phrases we've used before. But a proxyâespecially
this, that, which, here, there, now, thenâ
can be misleading if it's used thoughtlessly. The problem comes up when we've mentioned more than one thing and the reader has to guess which one the proxy refers to.
A research paper on dietary habits in small countries might include this sentence:
Every day the average adult in Grand Fenwick consumes two gallons of raw milk,
which
can be dangerous.
What's dangerous? The raw milk? Or drinking gallons at a time? The writer probably means the milk, so here's a solution:
The average adult in Grand Fenwick consumes raw milk,
which
can be dangerous, at the rate of two gallons a day.
That's awkward, perhaps, but it's clear. I'd rather drop which entirely:
Raw milk can be dangerous, but the average adult in Grand Fenwick consumes two gallons a day.
Sometimes
that
is the question. Imagine this sentence in a customer's complaint to a bookshop:
You claim the book is rare because it's a first edition, but
that
's incorrect.
What's incorrect? That the book is rare? Or that it's a first edition? There are several possibilities. The customer could mean this:
You claim the book is rare, but
that
's incorrect, even though it is a first edition.
Or perhaps this:
You claim the book is a first edition, but
that
's incorrect, even though it is rare.
I'd find it more graceful to drop that. For example,
The book is a first edition, as you claim, but it's not rare.
In the next sentence, which we might see in an Internet newsgroup, there's more than one
there
there:
I said the software was compatible so the hard drive wouldn't crash, but I was mistaken
there.
Exactly where is
there?
Was the writer mistaken about the software, the hard drive, or both? Assuming the worst, make it:
I said the software was compatible, but I was mistaken
there,
so the hard drive crashed.
Computers can get us into trouble in more ways than one. You might find this item on a hackers' bulletin board:
Kevin couldn't stop breaking into the Pentagon computer system even though the FBI was watching him,
now
that he was an Internet celebrity.
What does the sentence mean? Now that Kevin's a celebrity, he can't stop? Or now that he's a celebrity, the FBI is watching? Here's one solution: Now
that he was an Internet celebrity, Kevin couldn't stop breaking into the Pentagon computer system, even though the FBI was watching him.
People don't normally read a sentence in a vacuum. They can usually figure out what it means. But they
shouldn't have to. If there's any chance that readers might misunderstand, tinker with the sentence.
Say It Isn't So
An explanation can be confusing when it tells us why something isn't so. The danger signs are the words
not
and
because.
Used together, they can tangle an explanation in
not
s.
Can you untie this one?
He did not marry her because she was a Methodist.
Do you see why that sentence is tangled? No, it has nothing to do with religion or romance.
The problem is that the sentence can be read in two ways. It could mean:
Because she was a Methodist, he did not marry her.
Or:
He married her, but not because she was a Methodist.
We shouldn't have to be mind readers to understand an explanation.
The
not
is just as slippery if it's part of a contraction. Try to find the two possible explanations here:
A.J. didn't change the tires because he was doing practice laps the next
Mario was on a wild-goose chase and ran out of steam.
When Job got the short end of the stick, it was the last straw.
A dyed-in-the-wool vegan doesn't cotton to meatballs.
Daisy and Tom didn't see eye to eye, so she gave him an earful.
Don't make too many demands on the reader's imagination. One image at a time, please.
References Required
Our writing would be awfully klutzy if we had to repeat ourselves whenever we referred to something already mentioned. Luckily, we don't have to. There are proxies we can substitute for words or phrases we've used before. But a proxyâespecially
this, that, which, here, there, now, thenâ
can be misleading if it's used thoughtlessly. The problem comes up when we've mentioned more than one thing and the reader has to guess which one the proxy refers to.
A research paper on dietary habits in small countries might include this sentence:
Every day the average adult in Grand Fenwick consumes two gallons of raw milk,
which
can be dangerous.
What's dangerous? The raw milk? Or drinking gallons at a time? The writer probably means the milk, so here's a solution:
The average adult in Grand Fenwick consumes raw milk,
which
can be dangerous, at the rate of two gallons a day.
That's awkward, perhaps, but it's clear. I'd rather drop which entirely:
Raw milk can be dangerous, but the average adult in Grand Fenwick consumes two gallons a day.
Sometimes
that
is the question. Imagine this sentence in a customer's complaint to a bookshop:
You claim the book is rare because it's a first edition, but
that
's incorrect.
What's incorrect? That the book is rare? Or that it's a first edition? There are several possibilities. The customer could mean this:
You claim the book is rare, but
that
's incorrect, even though it is a first edition.
Or perhaps this:
You claim the book is a first edition, but
that
's incorrect, even though it is rare.
I'd find it more graceful to drop that. For example,
The book is a first edition, as you claim, but it's not rare.
In the next sentence, which we might see in an Internet newsgroup, there's more than one
there
there:
I said the software was compatible so the hard drive wouldn't crash, but I was mistaken
there.
Exactly where is
there?
Was the writer mistaken about the software, the hard drive, or both? Assuming the worst, make it:
I said the software was compatible, but I was mistaken
there,
so the hard drive crashed.
Computers can get us into trouble in more ways than one. You might find this item on a hackers' bulletin board:
Kevin couldn't stop breaking into the Pentagon computer system even though the FBI was watching him,
now
that he was an Internet celebrity.
What does the sentence mean? Now that Kevin's a celebrity, he can't stop? Or now that he's a celebrity, the FBI is watching? Here's one solution: Now
that he was an Internet celebrity, Kevin couldn't stop breaking into the Pentagon computer system, even though the FBI was watching him.
People don't normally read a sentence in a vacuum. They can usually figure out what it means. But they
shouldn't have to. If there's any chance that readers might misunderstand, tinker with the sentence.
Say It Isn't So
An explanation can be confusing when it tells us why something isn't so. The danger signs are the words
not
and
because.
Used together, they can tangle an explanation in
not
s.
Can you untie this one?
He did not marry her because she was a Methodist.
Do you see why that sentence is tangled? No, it has nothing to do with religion or romance.
The problem is that the sentence can be read in two ways. It could mean:
Because she was a Methodist, he did not marry her.
Or:
He married her, but not because she was a Methodist.
We shouldn't have to be mind readers to understand an explanation.
The
not
is just as slippery if it's part of a contraction. Try to find the two possible explanations here:
A.J. didn't change the tires because he was doing practice laps the next
Similar Books
