Post by Richard Yates
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 01:22:03 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
Post by John Doe
Why not write "England WILL be sorry"?
There are many such three word expressions like "is going to" in which
the word "will" should be used for efficiency IMO. Any reason not to do
I agree with that entirely, but striving for efficiency can improve the
aesthetics of a sentence, as well as clarity and precision.
When writing on screen, I have a tendency to add a completely superfluous
"which was" to sentences like "The building, which was completed in 1934,
was demolished in 1972".
I often don't spot it until I've printed it off for editing, at which point
the "which was" is almost always struck out, leaving "The building,
completed in 1934, was demolished in 1972". Which seems "cleaner" to me.
This thread came to mind yesterday, when I read the following quotation
from the US Dept of Defence:
To continue to securely create, access, process, manipulate, and monitor
information, DoD CIO has the need to identify potential sources that can
provide a commercial off-the-shelf [solution] to implement discretionary
access controls on top of the currently established mandatory access
controls, the department's officials wrote in their requirements.
I realise that DoD/civil-service-speak is a fish hanging about in a barrel
while it waits to be shot, but I don't expect that anyone will dispute that
that's one fugly sentence.
Re-writing the bit after "DoD CIO" as "needs to identify a commercial, off-
the-shelf system of discretionary access controls to run on top of existing
mandatory access controls" reduces the word count by more than a quarter,
and IMO improves clarity without any loss of precision.
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed