My love of languages (of many kinds) leads me to study forms that are more easily understood by a broad section of the people. My edits for native English are oriented to the language of settled agreement that was spoken in the 20th Century, rather than the vernacular of our own times, which can be expected to change within years and certainly within the decade. The language I prefer has greater stability, longevity, and universality than the momentary and regional fashions on TeeVee and the chat boards of our current day. A few common examples may help.
Consequences are of several kinds, and not all are appropriate to the same pronouns and language. But they are often confused in language, and that confusion is further muddled by common words in English. I try to remove that ambiguity, particularly by eliminating the conjunctions "due to" and "as" (when used as a synonym of "because"), which are rarely found in that older language.
Causal consequence (The day is warm because the sun is high in the sky.),
Intentional consequence (I asked you because I need your approval.), and
Logical or deductive consequence, sometimes called "ground and consequent" (Opposite exterior angles are equal because angles A and B are both equal to C.) An example of this confusion arose recently in the Nickel page: "Many earrings are now made nickel-free or low nickel release due to this problem." The intended statement is Intentional consequence, but this poor modernism expresses (at best) only Causal consequence. Much better to use a clear statement of intent: "Many earrings are now made nickel-free or low nickel release to address this problem."
Inanimate objects should not be personalized with Anthropomorphic grammar and syntax:
Inanimate objects should rarely be stated to have possessions (used in possessive case), "behave", or enjoy other anthropomorphisms (to use an anthropomorphism)
Inanimate objects are not "responsible" for anything, they do not have purpose, nor do they cause anything except in the most mechanical sense
Numbers should not be the object of the prepositions "over" and "under", which are prepositions of location. The prepositions of quantity and amount are "greater" or "more than", etc.
The antecedent of a pronoun should be explicit when the antecedent is so distant it becomes ambiguous. The only exceptions are when the antecedent is the subject of the current clause or sentence, the subject of the previous sentence, or the easily identifiable subject of the current paragraph. Antecedent usually should not carry across paragraphs. Primary offenders are the phrases, "It is estimated ...", "There are ...", "There is..." Pronouns should have an identifiable antecedent.
Clarity may be improved by combining sentences that require similar qualifiers or predicates, or the same subject. Sometimes repeated qualifiers can obscure the intent. I retain all the sense when shortening.
Some idiomatic phrases: "at least", "referred to as", and a number of others can be difficult to parse. I work to remove or clarify these where possible.
Double prepositions should be avoided, e.g., "referred to as"
"However" is not a conjunction and cannot be used to join principle clauses; it is an adverb.
Modifiers should be as close as possible to the modified word or phrase without intervening text. English users commonly misplace modifiers in statements such as "I only like one teacher." In some contexts, the meaning can be ambiguous. The speaker means, of course, "I liked only one teacher." The speaker does not mean that s/he either loved or hated all the teachers with one exception, and "only liked" one teacher. Such is the problem with misplaced modifiers.
Multiple conditionals are unnecessary. "The weatherman suggested we probably might have sunny weather."
In an Encyclopedia, a series of statements can be understood by the reader as a series of assertions, and the repeated occurrence of "also" clouds more than it clarifies. This falls into the general category of excessive connectives, such as "however", nevertheless", "in addition to", "as well as", "hence", "thus", "therefore", and other verbal Styrofoam. These are the words of argument and advocacy, rather than an encyclopedia.
Some modern phrases can be solved with simple grammar. The idiom "come into contact with" can usually be swept away and replaced with the verb: "contact".
The borrowed word "via" (as a synonym for "by") is much over-used, more difficult to say, pretentious, and not an improvement. "By" should be used in phrases of agency (Sam was helped by Bill) and tools (Sam leveled the stove by unscrewing the leg). "Via" has use only when naming an intermediate state. Pig iron is produced by (not "via") smelting. She traveled to London by (not "via") ship. He entered New York via LaGuardia Airport.
"Ones" is an excessively lame pronoun that rarely adds anything to a sentence. It is also an oxymoron, given that "one" has no meaning BUT singularity, while the suffix "-s" attempts to make it plural. The phrase, "these ones", limps from a sentence like an wounded refugee from a grammar battle -- usually the sentence died much earlier in the syntax wars.
"Very" and "extremely" can usually be discarded. If a text that means what it says, it does not require intensifiers. If it does not mean what it says, we have other problems (including credibility) that a mere intensifier cannot solve.
I follow the Strunk & White convention for commas in lists. "Blue, green, black, and violet are my favorite clothing colors." Using three commas, I leave no ambiguity. However, the sentence with only two commas ("Blue, green, black and violet are my favorite clothing colors.") may communicate only three preferences with the third preference black-and-violet.
I follow the which/that distinction: when used as a relative pronoun, which introduces a descriptive clause (telling more about the subect), while that introduces and restrictive clause (further discriminating among multiple possible subjects. Some scholars and writers criticize this distinction and it is not universal. There is no such differentiation in the who/whom relative pronoun, with both words serving either function. But I follow this convention as a writer because it costs nothing and it may help the reader to understand the text. Besides, that is easier to parse and to speak, and does not require an additional comma (or comma-pause in spoken English).
"These kinds" is usually a mathematical error. A "kind" is a set. Naming one or two example items of a type enables the reader to infer the set, but it does not enable the inference of multiple sets ("kinds"). The usual intent with this phrase is to indicate a single set ("kind"), and the grammar should so state: "this kind of thing," not "these kinds of things."
I will add more preferences and guidelines as I encounter them. So far, these guidelines have met with broad approval.
This article or section may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please review the source and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror.(April 2015)
