Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Grammar questions | Login/Join |
| Does This Avatar Make My Butt Look Big? Minor Deity  |
Can some of you grammar sticklers help me with something I see often at work? Take the sentence: "The car struck the tree, and it was badly damaged." To me, the use of "it" is problematic because the reader can't tell whether the car or the tree was badly damaged. OK, now a more complicated sentence: "Also, where there are references to a law, each ought to include the name." This sentence suffers from the same lack of clarity because we don't know what "each" refers to. I get that it needs to be fixed. The confusion I am having is that somehow, somewhere in my life, I came to understand that "each" in the sentence would refer to "law" because the word "law" is closer in proximity to "each" than "references" is. In other words, the reader hits the word "each" and looks around and lands on "law" because of proximity, which is probably not what was intended. So. . . is that proximity idea a real thing or did I make it up? When you're tracking down the noun that goes with a pronoun or unclear reference, you default to the word closest? Or did I make that up? *** Second question: The excerpt is: "References to laws should state the specific offense. For example, "Penal Code 12345." Am I correct that the second sentence is a sentence fragment and must be revised? | ||
|
Has Achieved Nirvana |
I think what you're describing in your first question is called an ambiguous antecedent. I always reword those sentences so there is no ambiguity. https://www.grammar-monster.co...ssary/antecedent.htm One may exist, but I've never heard a rule like the one you describe about proximity. As to the second question
Yes, it's a fragment. I'm not as much of a stickler for complete sentences as I used to be, so I probably wouldn't revise it. But if I did, it might read: References to laws should state the specific offense, for example "Penal Code 12345."
| |||
|
| (self-titled) semi-posting lurker Minor Deity  |
What WTG said. Re proximity, it is in fact a thing, but it works better when ambiguity is not involved! I would reword all those sentences to get rid of the ambiguity, even if the intended meaning aligns with the closest antecedent. Fiction and poetry aside, writing should not make the reader second guess themself. (check it: rocking that singular them+self 
| |||
|
| Has Achieved Nirvana |
Fiction and poetry aside, writing should not make readers second guess themselves.
| |||
|
| (self-titled) semi-posting lurker Minor Deity |
Nah, I like the singular they, so I'm working on themself as well. Give it a few years, no one will bat an eye.  Hey, wait a minute!! Spellcheck doesn't flag "themself"!!  Sorry for the thread drift Cindy!
| |||
|
| Does This Avatar Make My Butt Look Big? Minor Deity |
No worries about drift. I used to have a strong background in grammar and punctuation, but now I have these skeletons floating around in my brain and can't remember why things are the way they are. I appear to be the last holdout for the proper use of a "gerund." That would be something like this. Correct: Natalie objected to my borrowing her dress. Incorrect: Natalie objected to me borrowing her dress. Correct: I celebrated Nadal's winning Wimbledon. Incorrect: I celebrated Nadal winning Wimbledon. When I correct gerund misuse, people actually change them back. That's how I know I am the Lone Survivor. | |||
|
| (self-titled) semi-posting lurker Minor Deity |
I used to do the same with gerunds as you do, but I think it's shifting so much now. Like dangling prepositions. By all accounts, the I vs me thing remains in flux though.
| |||
|
| Foregoing Practicing to Post Minor Deity  |
“The car, having struck (stricken?) the tree, was badly damaged.” Better: “The car struck the tree and was badly damaged.” (Remove the “it”.)
| |||
|
| czarina Has Achieved Nirvana  |
You are correct that that is a sentence fragment, however, that is not a punishable offense when writing for a general audience. Perhaps for law journals it would matter more. You are also correct that proximity rules when deciding which noun is being referred to. It the first sentence, the tree was badly damaged because "it" refers to the last noun before the comma. However, even thought that is what the sentence means, it suffers from a lack of clarity. As an editor, I would ask the writer to recast that sentence: "The car was badly damaged after it struck the tree." Or, "the tree was badly damaged after it was struck by a car." The second sentence is even more confusing because singular and plural are mixed up if the closest noun is the one being modified. As an editor, I would presume the writer wants to say, rather, that: "Each reference to a law should include its name." You eliminate the problem, in both cases, by eliminating the sentence clauses. Hope I explained that clearly.
| |||
|
| Does This Avatar Make My Butt Look Big? Minor Deity |
Yeah, I spend a lot of time revising the work of others. Legal writing is very formal. We don’t even use common contractions. But this is the first time I have come across sentence fragments. The other thing that makes me nuts is when people switch’s up now s for no reason. It undermines precision. An example would be: The agency is working to reform its data systems. The department has identified this work as a priority. But the entity we’re talking about is the Gotham Police Department. Why are we using different words (agency and department) to describe it? This may be common in creative writing, but it is a problem in legal writing. Ahem. | |||
|
| czarina Has Achieved Nirvana |
I've taught a lot of lawyers and academics who want to break out of the conventions of their professional writing and be able to write for a general audience. It's not easy to switch from one to the other. I did time as a legal affairs reporter (for BNA) and it hurt my writing even just reading legal documents.
| |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|