Grammar question

[agalisgv]

The difference between use and utilize:
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-use-and-utilize/

 

[Prancer]

I still wouldn't say "I utilized the fork to prop open the window."

 

[Nomad]

I still wouldn't say "I utilized the fork to prop open the window."

Nor would I say "within" rather than "in, or "myself" when "me" or "I" is the way to go. Longer words do not necessarily make you sound "smarter".

 

[Artemis@BC]

Nor would I say "within" rather than "in, or "myself" when "me" or "I" is the way to go. Longer words do not necessarily make you sound "smarter".

While it's true that longer words don't necessarily make you sound smarter, the two examples you give don't really fit this argument since they all have different meanings and uses. The difference between "in" and "within" can be subtle, but each has its correct usage. And there's almost no overlap among correct usage for "me" vs "I" vs "myself." They're all different types of pronouns. Saying "Please contact myself if you have any questions" isn't just using a longer word unnecessarily, it's simply wrong.

 

[Japanfan]

9.An historical instead of A historical

THIS! 'An 'istorical' has become trendy and I just hate it.

 

[Japanfan]

I would prefer to think about it a whole lot less than I do. Why would anyone think about grammar without specific cause to do so?

Ditto times 1000!

Here's a question for writer/editor types.
How many 'and are okay in one sentence? My limit is four.
How many 'However' and 'Therefore' in one paragraph? My rule is generally one?
How many m-dashes/n-dashes are okay on one page? My limit is two.

 

[Prancer]

THIS! 'An 'istorical' has become trendy and I just hate it.

You must.

Ditto times 1000!

Here's a question for writer/editor types.
How many 'and are okay in one sentence? My limit is four.
How many 'However' and 'Therefore' in one paragraph? My rule is generally one?
How many m-dashes/n-dashes are okay on one page? My limit is two.

As many as it takes. I never count anything.

If there were more than four "ands" in one sentence, the sentence would likely be long and confusing and would need to be revised for that reason. But if the sentence were clear, I'd leave it alone.

The same is true of "however" and "therefore." If the words are used correctly and clearly, then I would leave them alone. The problem with those two is that they are used incorrectly so often.

I don't often run across em dashes in formal work, but I am not sure how one would eliminate en dashes based on anything other than correctness. What do you use in place of an en dash if a third or fourth one turns up?

 

[Japanfan]

As many as it takes. I never count anything.

If there were more than four "ands" in one sentence, the sentence would likely be long and confusing and would need to be revised for that reason. But if the sentence were clear, I'd leave it alone.

The same is true of "however" and "therefore." If the words are used correctly and clearly, then I would leave them alone. The problem with those two is that they are used incorrectly so often.

Interesting! I count all the time!

I agree that going beyond four 'ands' makes a sentence really confusing, I prefer no more than three if possible. 'As well as' sometimes works as an alternative.

My view is that the overuse of those may words confuse the reader or dull the reader's mind. The reason being that 'however' denotes a contrast or 'but if' and 'therefore' denotes a conclusion/derivative idea. In both cases the reader has to make the connection. I actually even sometimes prefer not to repeat those words two paragraphs in a row, but that is probably excessive.

And maybe I'm too rigid and could relax my rules a bit. . .easier to do that than the opposite.

Word repetition generally is an issue to me as an editor/writer. For example, in a personal statement/university application letter I try not to repeat words like 'passion'. 'Experience' is a problem because there really aren't many alternatives to it. And the verb allow/facilitate/enable - usually no other substitutes.

I figure that word/verb variation makes a document more engaging.

I don't often run across em dashes in formal work, but I am not sure how one would eliminate en dashes based on anything other than correctness. What do you use in place of an en dash if a third or fourth one turns up?

I see those dashes in formal work all the time, though TBH don't know if they are em or en dashes - I use the extended hyphen Word allows it, or the dash symbol from the symbol menu.

I usually write a separate sentence if I think there are too many dashes.

I got into a serious about the dashes once with a colleague/friend who had taken a certificate course in editing. Apparently minimal use of the dash is a common practice for editors.

 

[Prancer]

I see those dashes in formal work all the time, though TBH don't know if they are em or en dashes - I use the extended hyphen Word allows it, or the dash symbol from the symbol menu.

Em dashes are the long dashes generally used in place of parentheses, commas, and colons. Most of the formal documents I have edited have used those punctuation marks rather than em dashes, which are rather informal. I use em dashes--or their equivalent-- all the time in posts here, for example, but I don't use them in formal documents, and I honestly don't come across them very often.

I got into a serious about the dashes once with a colleague/friend who had taken a certificate course in editing. Apparently minimal use of the dash is a common practice for editors.

IME, editors argue over pretty much everything and have been known to come to blows over things like the serial comma. But en dashes are used for specific reasons--to separate numbers (Read chapters 1-3; The score was 79-78); to show conflict or connection (the New York-Philadelphia run; the Republican-Democrat divide; the Sykes-Picot Agreement); and to replace hyphens in compound modifiers (common-sense rules; extra-large pants).

Now hyphens are definitely disappearing, but that is, for me, determined by the style manual being used. But I don't know exactly how one would replace repeated en dashes, as they are used so specifically.

As for repeating words, I was taught (and also believe) that the primary focus of editing should always be clarity and coherence and that changing words simply because there are too many of this word or that is often confusing for a reader, particularly if one must revise sentences just to change the words. Repetition is also often used as a rhetorical device and changing words simply because they are repeated ruins the effect.

When I use sample papers in classes, students often comment on repeated words, and it's something I don't even notice until it's pointed out. When I look at the same text, what I usually see are awkward sentences or unnecessary prepositional phrases, which are much bigger problems IMO than something like overuse of auxiliary verbs. In the case of multiple howevers or therefores in a single paragraph, I suspect there would be a coherence issue. But if there weren't, then I would leave it be. As all of my editing professors said, if a reader is focusing on the words being used instead of the ideas being expressed, then the problem is usually not the words.

 

[Johnny_Fever]

I still wouldn't say "I utilized the fork to prop open the window."

That's another one of those military things. Add some more syllables so you sound smarter?

Oops, just realized you already said that.

 

[skatefan]

THIS! 'An 'istorical' has become trendy and I just hate it.

But, but, but that is correct In British English it's also an (h)otel, an (h)istoric/al or an (h)orrific event but not an (h)istory book, that would be a history book. Makes the words flow ... at least that's what we were taught in our English Grammar lessons

 

[Johnny_Fever]

A guy once emailed me that he's no 'prima donna'. He spelled it 'pre-madonna'. I guess he was on the right track.

 

[Susan1]

On a positive note, I just read the new book by Joy Fielding and did not find any typos or editing mistakes. That's got to be a first for me for the past 10 years, including when I read older books in a series before I read the latest one. Sometimes it's so distracting, I have to re-read a paragraph because I am thinking about the errors. I've gotten library books where someone has circled errors or added a letter where it should be, and even they have missed one or two. Funny.

 

[Prancer]

But, but, but that is correct In British English it's also an (h)otel, an (h)istoric/al or an (h)orrific event but not an (h)istory book, that would be a history book. Makes the words flow ... at least that's what we were taught in our English Grammar lessons

And rightly so, and not just for British English. This was already discussed in this very thread back on what is for me page three.

 

[Japanfan]

Em dashes are the long dashes generally used in place of parentheses, commas, and colons. Most of the formal documents I have edited have used those punctuation marks rather than em dashes, which are rather informal. I use em dashes--or their equivalent-- all the time in posts here, for example, but I don't use them in formal documents, and I honestly don't come across them very often.

It's the em I refer to. I see them all the time, and use them frequently.

Repetition is also often used as a rhetorical device and changing words simply because they are repeated ruins the effect.

This I know. Unfortunately I don't often get work written by writers who are good enough to use rhetorical devices.

In the case of multiple howevers or therefores in a single paragraph, I suspect there would be a coherence issue. But if there weren't, then I would leave it be. As all of my editing professors said, if a reader is focusing on the words being used instead of the ideas being expressed, then the problem is usually not the words.

Absolutely. It is the words that express the ideas.

 

[Prancer]

It's the em I refer to. I see them all the time, and use them frequently.

Huh. Well, this is pretty much what I was taught about em dashes: Use an em dash sparingly in formal writing. In informal writing, em dashes may replace commas, semicolons, colons, and parentheses to indicate added emphasis, an interruption, or an abrupt change of thought.

You edit a lot of academic work for nonnative speakers, IIRC? I think this probably applies: “The main reason people use [the em dash], however, is that they know you can't use it wrongly—which for a punctuation mark, is an uncommon virtue."

If I were to see a lot of em dashes in formal or even semi-formal work, I would assume that the writer had trouble with punctuation, and I would indeed work at removing most if not all of them. But writing is increasingly informal, even in contexts in which writing was traditionally formal, so perhaps the expansion of em dash use is just another step in the direction of informality.

Absolutely. It is the words that express the ideas.

Yes, but what they meant was that the problem wasn't the words but the thinking that goes into the words; when the thinking is clear and structured, the words are as well, and no one ever worries about whether a word is used too many times. If you read something and think, "They used the word X five times in that paragraph," the problem isn't that the word was used five times.

 

[rjblue]

I didn't even know there were different kinds of dashes until 2 years ago.

 

[maatTheViking]

I didn't even know there were different kinds of dashes until 2 years ago.

I just learned this right now - I have always used single dash as a pause in my sentences. I use them a lot too... And the three dots (usually only in informal writing )

 

[floridaice]

A guy once emailed me that he's no 'prima donna'. He spelled it 'pre-madonna'. I guess he was on the right track.

Saw this in an email at work recently and I don't know the sender well enough to know if it was a joke. Or if it's a millenial thing and I'm just too old and out of touch. Or if he's just an idiot (leaning toward this).

 

[vesperholly]

I just learned this right now - I have always used single dash as a pause in my sentences. I use them a lot too... And the three dots (usually only in informal writing )

Ellipsis ... which some people seem to use in place of periods

When I worked at the newspaper, we did a lot of replacing of en dashes/hyphens with em — typically because people didn't know how to type the em. Shift-option-dash on a Mac. I tend to write with a lot of dashes and parentheses and I often find myself rewriting posts here for clarity's sake.

Here's an interesting short article on dashes: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/HyphensEnDashesEmDashes/faq0002.html

 

[Japanfan]

Huh. Well, this is pretty much what I was taught about em dashes: Use an em dash sparingly in formal writing. In informal writing, em dashes may replace commas, semicolons, colons, and parentheses to indicate added emphasis, an interruption, or an abrupt change of thought.

I follow the same.

You edit a lot of academic work for nonnative speakers, IIRC? I think this probably applies: “The main reason people use [the em dash], however, is that they know you can't use it wrongly—which for a punctuation mark, is an uncommon virtue."

If I were to see a lot of em dashes in formal or even semi-formal work, I would assume that the writer had trouble with punctuation, and I would indeed work at removing most if not all of them. But writing is increasingly informal, even in contexts in which writing was traditionally formal, so perhaps the expansion of em dash use is just another step in the direction of informality.

Native speakers use the em dash more often in formal work, in my experience. Non-native speakers may not even be aware of them.
I too would consider an excess of em dashes to mean that the writer had poor punctuation. The benefit of the dashes is that they do get around punctuation challenges, which is precisely why they need to be used so sparingly.

Yes, but what they meant was that the problem wasn't the words but the thinking that goes into the words; when the thinking is clear and structured, the words are as well, and no one ever worries about whether a word is used too many times. If you read something and think, "They used the word X five times in that paragraph," the problem isn't that the word was used five times.

I do think that using a word too often can be problematic in itself, in certain cases. If it causes my brain to come to a full stop while reading, I'll change it.

I tend to be very word-driven when I edit, as opposed to content-driven, though I do pay attention to the clarity and consistency of content. I know an editor who spend several hours on the telephone talking to her clients about their content before even getting started and she is therefore a very infrequent editor, as no one can afford the time she needs. I just get ready, set, go. When something doesn't make sense to me I will reword it in one or more way, and usually the alternatives work.

Also, I often have to deal with technical/scientific content that makes no sense to me, in which case I have to rely entirely on writing mechanics.

 

[skatefan]

And rightly so, and not just for British English. This was already discussed in this very thread back on what is for me page three.

oops, apologies Prancer, I didn't read back far enough

My bad - I hadn't realised there'd been an earlier response; I checked back a couple of pages and didn't spot anything. And I realise that 'my bad' is something which would have had This is slang scrawled across it in bright red ink

 

[Prancer]

oops, apologies Prancer, I didn't read back far enough

My bad - I hadn't realised there'd been an earlier response; I checked back a couple of pages and didn't spot anything. And I realise that 'my bad' is something which would have had This is slang scrawled across it in bright red ink

Lucky for you I never grade in red ink--and what's the point of having slang if you can't use it in an appropriate forum?

I wasn't trying to chide you for not reading past posts; sometimes I post things because they amuse me in obscure ways.

 

[skatefan]

Thinking about grammar always takes me straight back to Miss Elson's English class in the early 70s and having 'this is slang' across something I'd written and I often write things here that make me think of her and smile. I loved school despite all the red ink It was a triumph for me to get work back without anything red on it other than 10/10 at the bottom

 

[nlloyd]

On a different note: does this use of the word "stymie" seem correct (it is a headline on today's CBC news website): "'Momentum is with us': Sanders looks to stymie Clinton's lead"?

I have never seen it used in a sentence where an individual is the subject i.e. doing the stymieing (I'm more familiar with passive voice: "he was stymied by the question" or even the google example "the changes must not be allowed to stymie new medical treatments").

 

[Prancer]

On a different note: does this use of the word "stymie" seem correct (it is a headline on today's CBC news website): "'Momentum is with us': Sanders looks to stymie Clinton's lead"?

I have never seen it used in a sentence where an individual is the subject i.e. doing the stymieing (I'm more familiar with passive voice: "he was stymied by the question" or even the google example "the changes must not be allowed to stymie new medical treatments").

I never thought about that one before, but it seems okay to me, as stymie means "to obstruct, hinder or block" and those words would be okay. I dislike the "looks to" more than the "stymie."

 

[nlloyd]

I never thought about that one before, but it seems okay to me, as stymie means "to obstruct, hinder or block" and those words would be okay. I dislike the "looks to" more than the "stymie."

Yes, "looks to" is horrible. The CBC use of stymie does make sense in terms of the definition; I just haven't heard it used in quite this way before. Having said that, if a headline read: "Trump stymies analysts with his unexpected success," I would probably not have found it as unusual as the CBC example, so perhaps the "looks to" does exacerbate things. However, "Analysts stymied by Trump's unexpected success," would be more familiar to me. In both examples, though, Trump is not actively setting out to stymie analysts; the usage seems less "transitive" than the CBC example.

 

[emason]

Am I the only one who thinks it is not "looks to" and "stymie", but "looks" and "to stymie"?

 

[Prancer]

Am I the only one who thinks it is not "looks to" and "stymie", but "looks" and "to stymie"?

Well, now if I were editing it, I would indeed leave "to stymie" because that is the verb form.

But I see "looks to" often in combination other verbs, and .

 

[nlloyd]

Am I the only one who thinks it is not "looks to" and "stymie", but "looks" and "to stymie"?

The meaning changes with that reading, though, doesn't it? You could say, "Sanders aspires to (or seeks to) stymie Clinton's lead." That is different from saying that he will stymie it i.e. "Sanders to stymie Clinton's lead." In any event, there has to be a more elegant way of expressing this idea ("Sanders intent on reducing Clinton's lead" or, sticking more closely to the meaning of "stymie," "Sanders intent on thwarting Clinton"?).