On 11 Jul 2018, HVS wrote
> On 10 Jul 2018, Richard Yates wrote
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 01:22:03 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
>> <***@message.header> wrote:
>>> 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 so?
> 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:
> (from https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/11/us_military_ai_snowden/)
> 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
> 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.
I'm not sure what I did to reduce the size of the text in that message;
presumably something to do with cut-and-paste.
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed