View Single Post
  #37 (permalink)  
Old June 29th, 2012, 06:31 PM
AR AR is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter View Post
So, I have a suggestion for AR and many of the other posters here - Can I just ask everyone to go out of their way to be sensitive to people's feelings?
So let's review the bidding. I start a string based on a funny list of misused homophones, and don't mention anybody on this board or anywhere else as an offender. Most people who respond, including one of your moderators, think it is cute, and that's the end of it. Two people are "offended" because they evidently think it's directed at them, which is isn't. When in reply I and others admit that at the end of the day we think language is important, the retorts range from "you know nothing" to "bite me." I am singled out for insensitivity. Mind you, I can take anything anybody here wants to dish out, and a lot more, but that's kind of interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter View Post
Now I agree with the person who said "I don't care about grammer as long as the idea gets across."
I don't, because it is almost universally true that ideas get across better via the correct use of the language. What's more, correct usage adds to the credibility of any idea, whether it's good or lousy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter View Post
Now - as someone who has regular copy editors revising my work all the time let me tell you, you never know how truly bad your writing can be until it is scrutinized by a professional editor.
Very true. In my experience, good writers view good editors as colleagues; mediocre and bad writers view them as adversaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter View Post
Grammar is easy. Wait until you have an editor who can't stand passive voice. It took me a year to fully understand the passive voice concept and assuage it from my repertoire.
Apparently grammar isn't easy for most. But you're right about passive voice. I don't know a single good editor who won't blue-pencil it. And they're right. The trouble with passive voice is that it is a copout in terms of who's making the statement. "I think" is far better than "It is thought," to use a simple example. That's why politicians like passive so much. Plus, I've always thought passive voice was clunky and inelegant. So if by "assuage it from my repertoire" you mean "pretty much stop using it" (simplify, simplify), I think you're on the right track.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter View Post
In professional writing there is actually a conflict between good action writing and good grammar. If you always use qualifying statements your writing gets very long and boring.
I'm not sure what qualifying statements have to do with good grammar per se, but the old adage that once you know the rules you're allowed some latitude to break them certainly holds true. But only in a good cause, and when you write well you know what the good causes are.

Finally, did you censor my Leviticus joke in the OP because you thought people wouldn't get it, or because you thought they would?
__________________
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. -- George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote