Showing posts with label michael. Show all posts
Showing posts with label michael. Show all posts
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Editing Student Essays
I wish I had read "One Paragraph, Three Ways" many years ago when I began tutoring students for SAT and SSAT. I felt that most of the time I was completely rewriting and reworking their essays to fit my style. After reading this section I realized that what I should have been focusing on was their style, maintaining internal consistency within their essays. The author notes that by resisting the urge to rewrite someone's writing, the copyeditor will be able to "devote more of [their] attention to [their] primary responsibilities." Rather than change the writing around to fit the editor's voice, a copyeditor should devote time and energy into finding mechanical errors, internal inconsistencies, and grammatical mistakes.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Not Coming Soon
I asked my friend Michael LaGory to respond to David's post; rather than embed his response in the comments, I decided to make it a new post.
Grammar haters had better not hold their breath waiting for the day when people stop using “whom” altogether. It is only slightly more imminent than the day people start using it correctly.
I am not impressed by the argument that “whom” does not make a distinction necessary for understanding. The same is true for much more basic rules, such as subject-verb agreement. Few grammatical errors significantly impede understanding, however much they may erode respect.
The “who”-“whom” error is probably most likely in questions (“Who do you love?” “Who can I turn to when nobody needs me?”) and least likely when the pronoun is the object of a preposition. Constructions like “one of whom” are still widely used. I almost never see “one of who.” The tendency to postpone prepositions increases the likelihood of error. Many people whose ears would twitch at “the woman with who I fell in love” would admit “the woman who I fell in love with” without a second thought, their Inner Grammatical Watchdog unstirred.
The Inner Grammatical Watchdog, although widely domesticated, is not extinct. Although the wolf has turned poodle even in many professional writers, in editors like my dear friend Pat, the dominant primordial beast remains alive and snarling. Set one careless foot in her domain, and she’ll be on your case.
Grammar haters had better not hold their breath waiting for the day when people stop using “whom” altogether. It is only slightly more imminent than the day people start using it correctly.
I am not impressed by the argument that “whom” does not make a distinction necessary for understanding. The same is true for much more basic rules, such as subject-verb agreement. Few grammatical errors significantly impede understanding, however much they may erode respect.
The “who”-“whom” error is probably most likely in questions (“Who do you love?” “Who can I turn to when nobody needs me?”) and least likely when the pronoun is the object of a preposition. Constructions like “one of whom” are still widely used. I almost never see “one of who.” The tendency to postpone prepositions increases the likelihood of error. Many people whose ears would twitch at “the woman with who I fell in love” would admit “the woman who I fell in love with” without a second thought, their Inner Grammatical Watchdog unstirred.
The Inner Grammatical Watchdog, although widely domesticated, is not extinct. Although the wolf has turned poodle even in many professional writers, in editors like my dear friend Pat, the dominant primordial beast remains alive and snarling. Set one careless foot in her domain, and she’ll be on your case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)