Leading parts, type 1

A leading part is a phrase that opens a sentence and describes the subject without directly naming it. It creates a sense of anticipation.

Type 1

The cue for this most basic of edits is two successive sentences (or clauses) with the same subject. When you find two sentences with the same subject, try to move one independent clause in front of the other, folding the two into a single sentence.

From this:

Mr. Gorbachev is esteemed in the West as the statesman who ended the cold war. But he is extremely unpopular in Russia, where he is blamed for allowing the Soviet Union to fall apart and for not having pushed reform of the command economy far enough.

To this:

Esteemed in the West as the statesman who ended the cold war, Mr. Gorbachev is extremely unpopular in Russia, where he is blamed for allowing the Soviet Union to fall apart and for not having pushed reform of the command economy far enough.

Next week: Leading parts, type 2.

Many of us know how to make our writing clear, concise, and appealing.

But looming deadlines mean that we must often settle for less than our best. While you might go through a dozen drafts of a cover letter or an application essay, you can't do the same for that report or memo due tomorrow. 

There are many writing editing software products and courses that help to improve writing skills. One of the most effective tools is ClearWriter, which focuses on the areas that make the biggest difference to your writing in the shortest time--to make your writing 80% better with only 20% of the effort (an idea called the Pareto principle).

The key is picking the right 20% to focus on. ClearWriter emphasizes three areas where the payoffs are highest.

Planning intelligently. Most writers start by assembling details, examples, and comments in paragraphs--sporadically making points, rarely conveying a message. Our approach is to do the reverse--to start with your messages, to support them with points, and to use those points to assemble your details, examples, and comments. It's easier said than done, but good planning will slash time from writing, rewriting, and editing. And it's essential for writing in teams. Bad planning can cost organizations hundreds of hours.

Focusing on the areas that readers notice most. Titles, captions, and introductory paragraphs draw your readers' attention, shaping their impressions for better or worse. Many readers will read only these elements. Making sure that they are flawless--and that they communicate your messages--will help you put your best foot forward.

Exploiting proven patterns for writing and editing. Good writing isn't a mystery. We've taken apart the best writing to see what makes it tick, and we've compiled easy fixes for the most common problems. So, if your writing is full of such overweight phrases as 'in relation to,' change these to 'on'or 'about.' Or consider the following passage:

Americans are struck by an annual outbreak of filial sentiment on Mother's Day. They make more long distance calls on Mother's Day than on any other day of the year.

Such successions of two sentences with the same subject are as common as they are uninteresting. But the first sentence can be converted to an introductory phrase to build anticipation:

Struck by an annual outbreak of filial sentiment, Americans make more long distance calls on Mother's Day than on any other day of the year.

Such patterns, which improve writing with a change of position and the cutting of a few words, are the key to writing better in less time.

But the pay curbs are minor in the grand bailout scheme, which will ultimately put hundreds of billions of tax dollars, if not trillions, on the line.

And such guarantees were presented as generally low cost and low risk. Which they are, until they aren't.

Which brings us back to the huge sums it will eventually take to repair the banking system.

That brings us back to the huge sums it will eventually take to repair the banking system.

Data Shows Manufacturing Is Suffering In All Corners

The worsening data, combined with a stream of company profit warnings, production cuts and layoffs, raises the pressure on policy makers to step up their efforts to bolster their economies.

Data Raise Likelihood of Big Interest-Rate Cut

In the case of A.I.G., the virus exploded from a freewheeling little 377-person unit in London, and flourished in a climate of opulent pay, lax oversight and blind faith in financial risk models.

In February, A.I.G.'s auditors identified problems in the firm's swaps accounting.

On September 18th it was appointed by Lehman Brothers' unsecured creditors to defend their interests.

With each passing day the news about China's tainted-milk scandal gets worse.

On September 18th at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, hosted Jin Jing, the handicapped Chinese Olympic torchbearer who had been accosted by pro-Tibet protesters in the French capital in April.

In July, he was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame.

In 2002, he traveled 18,827 miles

Over the next decade, he spent millions of dollars

Along the way, Mr. Fossett was credited with being the first

In 1998, a thunderstorm with hail ended his balloon flight

In 2005, he set an aviation record for solo, nonstop flight

During the Clinton administration, median household income increased by more than $6,000. Under President George W. Bush, median household income decreased nearly $1,000.

During the Clinton administration, median household income rose more than $6,000. Under President George W. Bush, median household income fell nearly $1,000.

The regime did not want to be blamed for him dying behind bars, he says, so he was allowed out for treatment.

The gerund dying demands the possessive his in the phrase for his dying behind bars because the object of the preposition for is dying. In the Economist example, him is the object of the preposition for; dying behind bars becomes a participial phrase modifying him. Imagine the (illogical) sentence without the nonessential participial phrase:

The regime did not want to be blamed for him, so he was allowed out for treatment.

I used to see the error only occasionally. Now I see it almost always.

A good test is to plug in first-person pronouns, both objective (me) and possessive (my), and to see how the gerund phrase works:

The regime did not want to be blamed for me dying behind bars...

The regime did not want to be blamed for my dying behind bars...

By him showing up, he signaled to the attendees at the NAACP convention that he would listen to their concerns and consider their advice.

By showing up, he signaled to the attendees at the NAACP convention that he would listen to their concerns and consider their advice.

Their use in distinguishing time, order, or nearness is straightforward.

This is a pleasant meal.

That was a pleasant meal.

I prefer this to that.

But where this and that are demonstrative pronouns referring to an earlier sentence, matters can become more complicated. Consider this except from a piece in The Economist called 'Time to buy.'

But neither government bond markets nor commodities can in any sense be described as being near a bottom.

In short, this does not look definitely like the kind of low from which very good long-term returns can be made. That may be because the market has a lot further to fall; Morgan Stanley suggests that, if the superbear argument is correct, equities could drop a further 50%. But that will surely require some kind of economic news of the kind seen in the 20^th century.

The present tense (does not look) governs the use of this in the first sentence. And present tense (may be) would indicate the use of This in the second sentence as well, but having already used this in the preceding sentence, the writer switches to That to avoid repetition and possible confusion over the antecedent. Future tense (will surely require) would indicate the use of this in the third sentence too, but distance in time (seen in the 20^th century) indicates that, overriding tense.

Here are a few more from a piece in The Economist on chemical sensors, 'Gas, gas, quick boys.'

In this way the components of the sample separate from one another. Each component is puffed onto the nanotubes, where it sticks to the carbon atoms. This, in turn, causes the conductivity of the nanotubes to change--how much is a characteristic of each gas.

What is needed is a cheap way of detecting such gases and, having raised the alarm, of identifying which gas is involved so that anyone who has succumbed can be treated.

And that is what a team of chemical engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, led by Michael Strano (pictured on the left), think they have created.

Present tense dictates the use of This in the first pair. It should also dictate the use of this in the second.

Perhaps the writer felt that that would be more demonstrative than this. Or perhaps the writer preferred the word with an abrupt finish over the one with a hiss, a preference I'm beginning to note.

For more on that, view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo1XFz0kac0.

Consider this pair of sentences from a recent Economist:

In a bid to salvage his reputation, Mr Badawi has belatedly started keeping the bold promises of reform that he made on coming to office in 2003. Foremost among these was curbing corruption within the government.

Here, these is the object of the preposition among, acting as a pronoun and standing for promises.

These can often stand alone as the subject of a clause, if it's clear what these refers to (see below). But these works less well as the object of a preposition or of a verb form. I usually switch to the pronoun them, which for me works much better.

'the bold promises of reform that he made on coming to office in 2003. Foremost among them was curbing corruption'

If it's not clear what these or them refers to, I insert the noun, switching these from a substantive to a demonstrative adjective ('Foremost among these promises').

Another usage is as follows:

 The case studies come next. These are straightforward and require mainly copyediting.

My colleagues Meta, Elaine, and Chris would write they, because these implies the existence of those, as though there's another set of book elements that are not straightforward. If there is another set, these would be acceptable, though I'd probably stick with they. Nick has another view (see his comment on this post).

One problem with the standalone substantive is that it usually forces the reader to stop and go back to look for the noun it refers to.

Less of a problem is announcing the noun:

These, then, are the reasons for taking the new threats seriously.

A nice rhetorical flourish.

But why not write those, then, are the reasons? More on this next week.

 
The abuse is common with rates, such as those of GDP growth:

 
Brazil's GDP growth increased by 2.5 percent in 2007.

 
If Brazil's GDP growth had been 5 percent in 2006 and increased by 2.5 percent, the growth rate for 2007 would be 5.125 percent. But if growth increased by 2.5 percentage points, the growth rate for 2007 would be 7.5 percent. A big difference.

 
The differences between two percentages are thus measured in percentage points not in percent, used for ratios and shares.

 
Consider these differences in the shares of three categories of voters from Wednesday's Washington Post:

 
An estimated 2 million Democrats voted, nearly triple the number who turned out in the past two presidential campaigns in the state. Clinton ran up big margins with her core constituencies, winning white voters with incomes under $50,000 by 32 points, voters over age 65 by 26 percent, and Catholic voters by 38 percent, more than countering Obama's strong showing among black voters and higher-income whites in Philadelphia and its suburbs.

 
For the 32 points, the writer should have made it clear that they are percentage points (this wasn't a basketball game that Clinton won by 32 points, with a score of 120-88).

 
And the 26 percent and 38 percent are plainly wrong. Both should have been percentage points, shortened to points if the first use had been 32 percentage points, specifying the kind of points.

 
If the margin among voters over age 65 had been 63 percent of the total to 37 percent, that would be 26 percentage points. But if Clinton had won those voters by 26 percent, her margin would have been 11.8 percentage points (0.37 x 0.32 = 0.118) and her share of the total 48.8 percent (0.37 + 0.118).

 
(Percent comes from the Latin per centum, by the hundred.)

Essentially tactical issues have overwhelmed the most important challenge a new administration will confront: how to distill a new international order from three simultaneous revolutions occurring around the globe: (a) the transformation of the traditional state system of Europe; (b) the radical Islamist challenge to historic notions of sovereignty; and (c) the drift of the center of gravity of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

I won't comment on the sentence's length (67 words), on the use of two colons, or on the use of letters (a, b, c) to indicate the three (1, 2, 3) revolutions. I will stick instead to the use of historic. Kissinger may have used historic to avoid repeating traditional.

Historic's seeming synonym is historical. The difference? Historical is history's ordinary adjective, meaning of history. Historic means memorable or dramatic, but I don't believe that Kissinger was thinking of memorable notions or dramatic notions.

Would anybody misread the second revolution? Yes. I would. Does distinguishing the two seeming synonyms make a difference? I believe that it does. So does Fowler in Modern English Usage: 'the use of one in a sense now generally expressed by the other is a definite backsliding.'

Historic also means assured of a place in history, as with historic accord or historic building. Grammarians also use historic as a technical term, as with the tense, historic present, the use of the present tense to relate events that occurred in the past..

Here are three other seeming synonyms routinely abused:

Comprise (embrace) and constitute (make up), as in 'The whole comprises the parts, and the parts constitute the whole.'

Imply (suggest to the reader or listener) and infer (conclude from the writer or speaker), in 'Are you implying that we should act on this? And may we infer from what you say that we should act on this?'

Masterful (domineering) and masterly (skillful), as in The Economist's take on Saddam Hussein's gulf war strategy: 'more masterful than masterly.' True, some dictionaries have a second definition of masterful that is the same as that for masterly, reflecting the words' early history as synonyms and the practice of most dictionaries of recording usage rather than pronouncing on proper usage. (I still shudder at the Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary's including prioritize as a verb.)

There are countless others. See Edit Yourself and the ClearEdits compare function.

Note

My colleague Meta pointed me to Merriam-Webster, for the definition of masterful:

Some commentators insist that use of masterful should be limited to sense 1 in order to preserve a distinction between it and masterly. The distinction is a modern one, excogitated by a 20th century pundit in disregard of the history of the word. Both words developed in a parallel manner but the earlier sense of masterly, equivalent to masterful 1, dropped out of use. Since masterly had but one sense, the pundit opined that it would be tidy if masterful were likewise limited to one sense and he forthwith condemned use of masterful 2 as an error. Sense 2 of masterful, which is slightly older than the sense of masterly intended to replace it, has continued in reputable use all along; it cannot rationally be called an error.

Samuel Johnson's dictionary gave both meanings for masterly:

1. Suitable to a master; artful; skilful.

2. Imperious; with the sway of a master.

(He did not include masterful.)

And this is what Fowler (the 20^th century pundit?) writes in Modern English Usage for masterful, masterly:

Some centuries ago both were used without distinction in either of two very different senses: (A) imperious or commanding or strong-willed, and (B) skilful or expert or practiced. The differentiation is now complete, -ful having the (A) and -ly the (B) meaning, and is nicely observed in The presentation in each case was masterly (perhaps in a few rare instances a trifle too masterful) and always the playing was crystal clear.

I agree with Fowler (and Meta) that the distinction is useful (I won't comment on his use of A and B). If someone were to write, Diana Vishneva's performance was masterful, how would I to know whether it was an expert performance or an imperious performance?

Masterful in the (B) meaning may survive because of the clumsiness of forming an adverb from the adjective masterly: masterlily. Masterfully clearly is less clumsy.  

But revitalizing the Starbucks experience is not going to be enough. Not even close.

The full sentence would have been:

But revitalizing the Starbucks experience is not going to be enough. It will not even be close.

Stripping the subject and verb from the front and leaving the fragment drives the reader straight to the point.

Here's another example from the ClearWriter archives:

The marriage of America and the rest of the world is just that. A marriage, for better or worse.

The more conventional version might have been:

The marriage of America and the rest of the world is just that, a marriage for better or worse.

A small difference, but a difference. Because the fragment is unconventional, it draws more attention to the point than the conventional version does. Just be sure that the passage merits the attention.

Only she is my wife.

She only is my wife.

She is only my wife.

She is my only wife.

She is my wife only.

Today's post looks at only as an adverb.

In speech and informal writing only often appears earlier than the word, phrase, or clause it modifies.

Today's post only looks at only as an adverb.

With only preceding looks, the readers' first take is that the post only looks and does nothing else. Readers are unlikely to misunderstand this, but by putting only one position later, their first take is the correct one, that the post looks only at only as an adverb, the full and unbroken adverbial phrase.

Today's post looks only at only as an adverb.

Fowler, in his Modern English Usage, writes that the first version is the normal way of speaking and, however illogical it may be, changing to the second version would succumb to pedants, who 'If they are not quite botanizing on their mother's grave, they are at least clapping a strait waistcoat upon their mother tongue, when wiser physicians would refuse to certify the patient.'

But especially in formal writing, I think placing only immediately before the word, phrase, or clause it modifies can improve clarity by making the writer reflect about what only is limiting.

Consider this, from a March 24 piece in The Atlantic by James Fallows, Nerds only: Firefox 3 beta is available:

I switch back to 2 only when I want to use that Chinese plug-in.

Compare that with:

I only switch back to 2 when I want to use that Chinese plug-in.

Readers will figure out what only is limiting, but they will start on the wrong scent with only switch. A look at some of Fallows's other sentences shows the same care in placing only.

Where the placement matters most is when the part of the sentence modified is some distance from only.

Compare:

I only decided to arrange a trip to the Bahamas to do a bit of fishing when it struck me that I might not have another chance for some time.

With:

I decided to arrange a trip to the Bahamas to do a bit of fishing only when it struck me that I might not have another chance for some time.

So, when using only as an adverb, reflect on where best to place it.

For more on only, visit Dictionary.com. There you'll see its many uses as an adverb and as an adjective (or conjunction). You'll also see its origins, from Old English, as aenlic or anlic, or one-like to only.

Some dashes link an elaboration, replacing a comma or a colon. Here's an example from Maureen Dowd in the New York Times:

But Saint Obama played the politics of character to an absurd extent. For 14 months, his argument for leading the world has been himself--his exquisitely globalized self.

With a comma instead of the dash, the passage would read:

But Saint Obama played the politics of character to an absurd extent. For 14 months, his argument for leading the world has been himself, his exquisitely globalized self.

The comma throws the reader too quickly into the trailing elaboration.

Elaborative dashes often attract more attention to a phrase than colons, as in this example from The Economist:

He is also interested in what some religions hold out as the ultimate reward for good behaviour--life after death.

Other dashes are parenthetical, helping readers wade through background or explanatory material in the middle of a sentence. Consider this example from The Atlantic:

The expensive cars [paparazzi] drive reflect the fact that Britney Spears--her marriages, custody battles, fights with her mom, new boyfriends, Starbucks runs, trips to the hospital--is a bigger and more lucrative story than Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton or John Lennon and Yoko Ono.

The dashes help readers process the details without losing the writer's thrust. The dash-less alternative is a jumble that makes it tough for readers to get from the subject (Britney Spears) to the verb (is):

The expensive cars [paparazzi] drive reflect the fact that Britney Spears, including her marriages, custody battles, fights with her mom, new boyfriends, Starbucks runs, and trips to the hospital, is a bigger and more lucrative story than Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton or John Lennon and Yoko Ono.

And still other dashes inject a pause, forcing a moment of reflection on what precedes them--before flinging readers into what follows. Here's an example from a World Bank World Development Report:

Yet billions of people still live in the darkness of poverty--unnecessarily.

Here the dash simply replaces a word space.

So when should you use a dash? Remember that dashes are pauses, so use them for emphasis--and sparingly. Also, avoid using them in a sentence that has a colon.