Before
the
rules,
here
are
what Fowler
calls
superstitions or fetishes: superstitions are false
rules and fetishes are “rules and conventions misapplied or unduly revered” MEU. Your software
grammar
check is
not
useless,
but it does adhere to
many of
the
following superstitions.
What you should
do is to ask yourself: Is
this
what I really
want?
Does
it work?
Is it
clear and beyond confusion? Is it the best solution? If you can answer yes, keep going. If you aren’t sure or
answer
no,
then
consider
rewriting.Do not end a sentence with a preposition—false
In Latin prepositions stand before (they pre-position) the words they control—that’s in Latin, not English. Prepositions have been used correctly as terminal words for centuries. “Follow no arbitrary rule . . . . If the final preposition that has naturally presented itself sounds
comfortable, keep it; if it does not sound comfortable, still keep it if it has compensating
vigor, or when among awkward possibilities it is the least awkward” MEU.
The essence of this superstition depends on what word the sentence ends with.
Do not split an infinitive—false:
“The English speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what
a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and
condemn; (4) those who know and approve; (5) those who know and distinguish” MEU.
Splitting the infinitive to go with the adverb boldly
is fine; although there are subtle differences between to boldly go and to go boldly, depending on whether the emphasis should be
on
go or boldly. “There is no point in rearranging a sentence just to avoid splitting an infinitive unless it
is an
awkward one”
WGI.
Do not split a compound verb—false:
With compound verbs, such as have seen or have been, the adverb usually comes between the auxiliary and the participle. The only rationale for the superstition that I have found seems to be the presumption that given that it is “wrong” to split an infinitive, have always
been or have never seen are either
split infinitives [of
course they
are
not]
or they
should be
treated as such.
Do not use sentence fragments—false:
Many grammarians and teachers define a sentence as “A combination of
words
Your word processor’s grammar check will flag sentence fragments almost as quickly as they
are typed. You need to be aware of sentence fragments, and assess their risks or advantages.
Do not begin a sentence with And, But, or Because —false:
This appears to be a superstition without any rational, right or wrong. Be wary of abusing it though, which is true of
most
things
in writing.
Do not write one sentence paragraphs—false:
Use one sentence paragraphs to: breakup long paragraphs that might tire the reader; to emphasize a point that might get lost otherwise; and to enliven a transition in a narrative
or argument.
Do not refer to the reader as you—false:
Avoiding the word you often leads to the unnecessary use of the passive voice, which usually adds words. Arguably, the use of you is less formal than writing that avoids it. However,
when
you
use
“you”, be aware of
your
audience.
Do not use between with more than two objects—false:
Although many an
English teacher may be a stickler for this, there is ample reason to ignore it. If there is a distinction, it is this: between is particular and “expresses the relation of a thing to many
surrounding things severally and
individually”: whereas, among “expresses a relation to
them
collectively
and
vaguely” MEU.
Do not use since to mean because—false:
Aside from the writer’s choice, the only reason to choose because over
since is when the other
meaning
of since, from a definite past
time
or before
the
present, might be
a miscue.
Do not use contractions—false:
Perhaps contractions have no place in formal, academic,
writing, but they add warmth
and informality. They are a must in dialogue, and, without excess, in many other forms.
In dialogue they can be quite varied—from didn’t and can’t, to more distant should’ve, or shouldn’t’ve. Be aware that the closer you come to transcribing real dialect, as opposed to
suggesting it, the greater the risk of making your writing difficult. You should consider using didn’t or can’t; for example, when the formality
of did not draws too much attention to
itself and sounds
stuffy.
Do not use clichés—false:
Once you begin to look for clichés, you’ll find them in every nook and cranny. You should
consider
excising what
Fowler calls:
Hackneyed Phrases—“The purpose with which these phrases are introduced is . . . of giving
a fillip to a passage that might be humdrum without them. . . . But their true use when they come into the writer’s mind is as danger-signals ; he should take warning that when they
suggest themselves it is because what he is writing is bad stuff, or it would not need such help”
MEU. E.g.
acid test, explore every
avenue,
fair sex, strain
every nerve
. . .
Battered Ornaments—“alma mater, daughter of Eve, gentle sex, Emerald Isle, suffer a sea
change
. . .” MEU.
Irrelevant
Allusions—“We all know the people—for they are the majority, and probably
include our particular selves—who cannot carry on the ordinary business of everyday talk
without the use of phrases containing a part that is appropriate and another that is pointless or
worse
. . . ; they have a sort
of pleasure in producing the combination
that a child has
in airing a newly acquired word. There is indeed a certain charm in the grown-up man’s boyish ebullience, not to be restrained by thoughts of relevance . . . . And for that charm we put up with it when one draws our attention to the methodical by telling us there is method to the madness
. . . the winter
of his discontent . . .”
MEU.
Metaphor—Fowler quotes Churchill, “‘How infinite
. .
. is the debt owed metaphors by politicians who want to
speak strongly but
are
not
sure
what they
are
going to
say,’
Hardly less, as no one knows better than Sir Winston, is the debt owed to metaphors by those who, knowing
what they
are
going to
say, wish to
illumine and vivify it” MEU.
Siamese Twins—“. . . words, linked
in pairs by
and
or or, but
having
a single meaning: be-
twixt and between,
bits and pieces,
leaps
and
bounds, heart and soul
. . .” MEU.
Vogue Words—how else might one say, “The financial crisis is having an awesome impact
on our
bottom line.
It’s a no
brainer.
We need to find the upside
of the new paradigm”?
But as Garner says, “You’ll sometimes need clichés. That is, they’re occasionally just the
ticket, but
only when no
other phrase
fits the bill”
MAU.
Do not repeat the same word twice—false:
“The fatal influence is the advice given to young writers never to use the same word twice in a sentence—or within 20 lines or
other limit” MEU. From this we get dialogue
in which the attributions move thusly: he said, she enunciated, he opined, she
announced, he articulated, she averred. Certainly, he said, she said, he said . . . would be
simpler
and
better.
What you should
be wary of
is repeating the unusual
word. Nabokov opens Pnin saying: “The elderly passenger sitting on
the
north-window side of
that inexorably moving railway coach . . .”
Inexorably foreshadows Pnin’s entire misadventures, and it is never seen again in the book.
Do not write what you don’t know: write what you know—false:
This advice can be paralyzing. You should not invent matters of fact (you cannot say Los
Angeles is the capital of California, unless your story is dystopian, speculative fiction);
therefore there are things you should know. But you should not have to be a murderer to write about murder. You cannot know everything—just don’t get things wrong that you
should know.
Sources
MAU: A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. Bryan A. Garner.
New
York: Oxford
University Press,
1998.
MEU: A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. H.W. Fowler. 2nd
ed.,
rev. New York:
Oxford University
Press, 1965.
WGI: Writer’s Guide and Index to English. 4th ed., rev. Porter G. Perrin. Atlanta:
Scott, Foresman and Company.
No comments:
Post a Comment