Craftsmanship in communications

[Mitchell Andrus]

A pet peeve of mine... poor craftsmanship in communications. So, perhaps you can settle a debate for me. I say "all my children" should more correctly be "all of my children" just as we say "both of my children". Correct?


And... It should be "Write it Correctly", not "Write it right", right, err..., correct?

.

[Ben West]

I'm not an english major nor an editor, but I do a lot of writing professionally. Of course, editors sometimes correct what I write, so keep that in mind!

In their landmark book "Elements of style", Strunk and White provide a few foundational rules of writing. One of the most important is "Omit needless words."

"All my children" and "all of my children" are both technically correct. However, "all my children" omits one needless word, so it is preferable.

This is similar to the 2 statements "I believe that wood is good" and "I believe wood is good." Both are technically correct, but the first is more elegant and desirable.

OK now, editors, correct me.

[Gene Howe]

+1 Less is more.

In order to effectively communicate, one's style is required to reflect succinctness and brevity. Of course, this necessitates the elimination of all unnecessary verbiage, leaving only those words that are relevant to the intended central point of one's communicative effort.:D

[Jim Becker]

I agree with the lack of "of" being permissable in the first one. In the second, while "write it right" is cute, "write it correctly" is...well...correct.

[Mitchell Andrus]

+1 Less is more.

In order to effectively communicate, one's style is required to reflect succinctness and brevity. Of course, this necessitates the elimination of all unnecessary verbiage, leaving only those words that are relevant to the intended central point of one's communicative effort.:D


So "All those children" is better than "All of those children"?

How about answering the question: How many are going to the store? "All us" or "All of us"? Nobody says "all us".

Song: "All of Me"... not "All me". Nobody says "Take all me".

How much of that ice cream did you eat? Either: "I ate it all", or "I ate all of it". Nobody says "I ate all it".
.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

+1 Less is more.

Of course, this necessitates the elimination of all unnecessary verbiage, leaving only those words that are relevant to the intended central point of one's communicative effort.:D


Why does the old saying "Physician...heal thyself!" come to mind?
:D

[Kevin Arceneaux]

Have you ever read Fed regulations? I used to revise them into Louisiana regs, I worked at LDEQ in Haz Waste. I used to get into wars with the "English" majors in the reg development section. They kept wanting to rewrite the Fed regs with corrected English. You can't do that, it really gets the EPA Lawyer's shorts in a knot. By moving a comma, you have possibly changed the meaning of a rule and EPA will NOT authorize your state to administer it in lieu of EPA. I had to get EPA's lawyers to come explain that to the "English" majors. MAJOR PITA!!!!!!!

[David Epperson]

Nobody says "all us".

Nobody says "Take all me".

Nobody says "I ate all it".
You, quite obviously, have not met the same mouth breathing, knuckle draggers that I have to work with. It would take a huge effort on their part to come close to such eloquence.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Have you ever read Fed regulations? I used to revise them into Louisiana regs, I worked at LDEQ in Haz Waste. I used to get into wars with the "English" majors in the reg development section. They kept wanting to rewrite the Fed regs with corrected English. You can't do that, it really gets the EPA Lawyer's shorts in a knot. By moving a comma, you have possibly changed the meaning of a rule and EPA will NOT authorize your state to administer it in lieu of EPA. I had to get EPA's lawyers to come explain that to the "English" majors. MAJOR PITA!!!!!!!

Some good ones:

How many horses in the following sentence were in the race — three or four?
“The horses thundered toward the finish: black and gold, red and white, blue and teal and yellow.”

Here’s another example from a book dedication: “To my parents, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II.”

The best I've seen:

The man thinks, the woman feels.
The man, thinks the woman, feels.
.

[Gene Howe]

Why does the old saying "Physician...heal thyself!" come to mind?
:D

Thanks, you've made my point.:)

[Danny Thompson]

The word is "We-uns."

Write it well.

I'll answer you question with another question:
As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives. Seven wives with seven sacks. Seven sacks with seven cats. Seven cats with seven kits. Kits, cats, sacks, wives--how many were going to St. Ives?

Cryptic <> elegant.

"That" is preferrable when stating a formal position: "I believe that all men are created equal" has a different meaning than "I believe all men are created equal." If it doesn't impact the meaning, drop it.

[Ben Davis]

I'm not an english major nor an editor, but I do a lot of writing professionally. Of course, editors sometimes correct what I write, so keep that in mind!

In their landmark book "Elements of style", Strunk and White provide a few foundational rules of writing. One of the most important is "Omit needless words."

"All my children" and "all of my children" are both technically correct. However, "all my children" omits one needless word, so it is preferable.

This is similar to the 2 statements "I believe that wood is good" and "I believe wood is good." Both are technically correct, but the first is more elegant and desirable.

OK now, editors, correct me.
I strongly disagree. What part of speech does children become in the phrase All my children? Object? It can't be!

For example, in the sentence

All of my children need money.

children is the object of the preposition of.
If one omits the prepositional phrase of my children, the sentence is still grammatically correct.

All need money.

If one omits the preposition, you are left with an object for which there is no preposition. It is an incorrectly formed phrase.

Strunk and White were referring to redundant phrases such as
I will repeat myself again
and other similar useless words.

[Danny Thompson]

In "all my children," "children" is a noun and "all" is an adjective, I think.

Now if I only knew the difference between a tryplane and a foreplane.

[Sonny Edmonds]

Read my lips....
I don't care. :p

"Iz axin you ta come." :confused:

There are much bigger fish to fry than the title of a show that has been running for some 40-50 odd years!
Look at how dumb we have become.
Rant cut short at this point, because there is no point. ;)
Refer to line 2 above.

[Ben Davis]

In "all my children," "children" is a noun and "all" is an adjective, I think.

Now if I only knew the difference between a tryplane and a foreplane.
Agreed. Noun.

Nouns in general can either be the subject of a sentence or clause, or they can be objects. Since this an independent clause, and children is not the subject of the sentence, it is an object. But an object of what? That's the problem! Of must be present for their to be a prepositional phrase for which children is the object.

Blah!

[Danny Thompson]

In "All my children need money," "children" is the subject. In "All of my children need money," "All" is the subject.

[Bill Houghton]

As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives. Seven wives with seven sacks. Seven sacks with seven cats. Seven cats with seven kits. Kits, cats, sacks, wives--how many were going to St. Ives?

The classic answer to that riddle is "one," but, actually, since the speaker doesn't indicate whether s/he met the polygamist and his wives going in the other direction, or overtook them, the proper answer is, "I need more information."

I am reminded of the old story among Quakers that, if you ask a Quaker what color that barn over there is, s/he should answer, "Well, this side is red." No way to know if the other side is another color without looking.

[Bill Houghton]

I think the question that always needs to be answered is whether the sentence is clear. Ambiguity is far more dangerous than minor grammatical violations.

[Danny Thompson]

That avatar is a hoot, Sonny!

[Mike Henderson]

My belief is that the writer needs to make it easy for the reader to understand the material. So we use punctuation, capitalization, and agreed upon spelling and grammar.

People who write in all lower case (or all upper case, for that matter), don't use punctuation, and spell in ways that are not common (u for you, 4r for for, etc.), or just spell incorrectly, are not thinking of the reader - they're selfish writers more concerned about what's easy for them.

This is not to say that abbreviations or "cute" spelling should not be used, but the writer needs to be very careful to make sure the expected reader will be able to understand what's written. The reader should not have to struggle to understand the writing.

Writing clearly is the polite thing to do.

Mike

[Andrew Jordan]

Unless you're an editor for the Chicago Manual of Style, it's not necessary to fixate that much on your grammar. All of my children is grammatically correct; removing the 'of' does not make it grammatically correct.

If one was to worry about one's grammar at all times, then one would begin to sound pompous! :)

However, as an English teacher, I do my best to speak correctly; but If I occasionally dangle a participle, it's not the end of the world! :)

[Rick Moyer]

All Y'all is makin' my head spin:p

[Rod Sheridan]

;)Americans discussing English, now that's funny!


Regards, Rod.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

;)Americans discussing English, now that's funny!


Regards, Rod.

Kinda like Canadians discussing English or French....eh?:rolleyes:

[Eric DeSilva]

I am reminded of the old story among Quakers that, if you ask a Quaker what color that barn over there is, s/he should answer, "Well, this side is red." No way to know if the other side is another color without looking.

As a Quaker, I'm afraid I'm probably say "red."

I'm not sure even the old-timey Quakers with funny hats dressed in black have a monopoly on literalism. Odd tale, and not one I've ever heard before...

[Rod Sheridan]

We call it Fringlish or Franglais!

Nice use of "eh" by the way Ken, we'll have to make you an honourary Cannuck for that!:D

[Andrew Jordan]

My French-Canadian friends DO speak Frenglish...they flip flop between the two languages at the drop of a hat! It's really annoying!

Andrew

[Ken Garlock]

Eschew Obfuscation!
Do not engage in arrant pedantry of egregious sesquipedalianism

[glenn bradley]

;)Americans discussing English, now that's funny!


Regards, Rod.

:D:D:D Ain't that the truth? Speaking of less is more; anyone read 1984? This all sounds double-plus un-good to me.

[Paul Atkins]

Not to refer to anyone in this thread of course, but does anyone use spellcheck in this forum? Sometimes I'm not sure what I am reading. (about) I have posted many mistakes I'm sure, but there is a red line under most misspelled words to alert me. Of course I'm going to read this a dozen times before pushing 'submit'.