What's Wrong With This Sentence? Consider the following sentence. What is wrong with it? "Write simply to the point." Look in the correction box for the answer. This includes not only those le

Jeff

What's Wrong With This Sentence? Consider the following sentence. What is wrong with it? "Write simply to the point." Look in the correction box for the answer. This includes not only those learning English. Today's note is on advance English and to learn how to write better.

Feb 7, 2013 4:17 PM

Corrections · 18

There is no spelling error in the sentence and the grammar is correct. So what is wrong with it? The answer is... It's verbose and redundant. It should be,

Write simply to the point.

Verbosity and conciseness have the place. In the introduction of this note, the first paragraph can be concisely written as, What is wrong with the following sentence?

However, these two are different cases. In the first one, the word, simply, is redundant and superfluous. It adds no value to the sentence. In the second case, verbosity gives the tone to a warmer and friendlier atmosphere. Another example of how being concise leads to different reactions,

Come here vs Please come here.

Even though both mean the same thing, one is a command and the other is a plea. Depending on the context, it changes everything. This entry does not deal with this sort of cases; it deals with how to write simply and concisely without changing the tone. This is especially true in legal writing which tends to be redundant and verbosity-ridden.

How should the following piece rewritten? It was written by a lawyer in the case of SECURITIES INVESTOR CORP vs BERNARD L MADOFF INV. SEC and JPMORGAN CHASE& CO, February 9, 2011 – Complaint.

By virtue of servicing the 703 account, JPMC was required to monitor BLMIS. It was this that led JPMC to uncover a number of red flags indicating that Madoff was engaging in fraud.

Note: JPMC = JP Morgan & Chase, BLMIS = Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities. This is the abbreviation used in writing long names of the parties invovlved. Also note that in the title, ALL party names are CAPITALIZED. This is the standard format required! Just like all significant words in essay titles should have its first letter capitalized.

A clearer and a concise way of writing is,

By virtue of servicing the 703 account, JPMC was required had to monitor BLMIS. It was this that This led JPMC to uncover a number of several red flags indicating that Madoff was engaging in fraud.

The number on sign of verbiage: More than any other sign, the word “of” will direct you to unnecessary words,

In its discussion of the issue, XYZ recognized…

Employees on this rig typically worked a twenty-one day rotation and stayed in Alaskaduring the pendency of the rotation.

Note: that the Unnecessary words can appear on the either side of the “of”.

Here is a link to get everyday tips in writing concise and clearer English. Sorry if you cannot access the site for those from Mainland China.

<a href="http://www.writetothepoint.com/">http://www.writetothepoint.com</a>;

February 7, 2013

Happy New Year, Jeff, Chinese, overseas Chinese, Taiwanese and other friends.

A good post is always very nice to read. It's informative. Moreover, it’s thought-provoking, and leads to more transactions.

Below is my personal view on some of your points. Because I am no native English speaker, it’s only my humble opinion, and there can be some mistakes in my writing.

"Write to the point." and "Write simply to the point." can both be good English depending on what you want to say. And sometimes, they can be bad English. "Write to the point." sounds like a command. This is the drawback of this sentence.

In commenting your point, "Simply" is not at all meaningless to me here. It emphasises that you don't need anything else complex but the conscious in writing. Whether the latter is right isn't difficult to answer. Just ask yourself: if you saw someone who wrote aimlessly, which upset you, what would you say? I believe all native speakers have the instinct to get the right answer. By the way, personally I think that your statement "In the first one, the word, simply, is redundant and superfluous." itself is cluttered. "Redundant" and "superfluous" have exactly the same meaning: more than needed. So you should use either one.

The statement,“Please come here is favoured over Come here”, is arguable too. This expression is usually used in speaking. Then how these sound depends on your tone rather than the language itself. Suppose you and your friend goes shopping in a mall, and you two hunt separately. All of a sudden, you find some bracelet that, you believe, is of your friend's interest. What would you say? Just say it aloud. Clearly, the former is more natural than the former.

With regard to the general rule of polite English, as we all know, it is always rude to say either sentence to a stranger, whereas if you are a superior asking your subordinate to come here, you naturally say "Please come here", although it still sounds like a command (A sentence beginning with please is often an order.) and it should be. But on that occasion, saying "Come here" with a strong tone will be very aggressive. Non-native speakers are advised to use “could you”, “would you” and such like to be safely polite.

By virtue of servicing the 703 account,

I agree with you: “virtue of” is unnecessary here.

JPMC was required to monitor BLMIS.

Whether had to is better than was required, needs other native speakers’ confirmation.

It was this that led JPMC to uncover …

You are right. This is better than it was this here.

… a number of red flags indicating …

I am not sure if several is better than a number of. Could you explain it?

… that Madoff was engaging in fraud.

“That” is optional here. But adding “that” here makes it more formal.

“Sorry if you cannot access the site for those from Mainland China.” Sorry if this offends you, but this sentence can’t be good English.

Sorry, if you can’t access the site, for those from mainland China.

First, you are sorry for people from PRC, then the clause “if blah blah” that splits this phrase should appear with a pair of commas. Secondly, you are emphasising sorry rather than if mainland Chinese have the resource to access your website. Therefore, “can’t” works better here. In spoken English, “cannot” is not stressed and contracted form is used; in writing, even in formal writing, it is sensible to use contraction in order to keep it natural. You might doubt it, but I suggest you read some books to check which form is preferred by other writers. Finally, whether you like it or not, keep it in mind, “Mainland China” is NOT appropriate English. You must say “mainland China.” There’s no need to argue it because everyone that reads some English sees “mainland China” every day.

I must reiterate it: I’m only an English learner, and more discussion and help are essential to me. What I was doing here is not to humiliate you at all -- I swear. It’s actually a desperate effort to understand the true nature of English. Hence, your reply will be appreciated. Thank you.

February 8, 2013

What follows are some slight corrections of your explanation.

There is no spelling error in the sentence and the grammar is correct. So what is wrong with it? The answer is... It's verbose and redundant. It should be:

Write simply to the point.

Verbosity and conciseness have their place. In the introduction of this note, the first paragraph can be concisely written as, What is wrong with the following sentence?

However, these two are different cases. In the first one, the word simply is redundant and superfluous. It adds no value to the sentence. In the second case, verbosity gives warmth to the tone, making it seem more friendly. to a warmer and friendlier atmosphere. Another example of how being concise leads to different reactions:

Come here vs Please come here.

Even though both mean the same thing, one is a command and the other is a plea. Depending on the context, it changes everything. This entry does not deal with these sort of cases; it deals with how to write simply and concisely without changing the tone. This is especially true in legal writing which tends to be redundant and verbosity-ridden.

How should the following piece be rewritten? It was written by a lawyer in the case of SECURITIES INVESTOR CORP vs BERNARD L MADOFF INV. SEC and JPMORGAN CHASE& CO, February 9, 2011 – Complaint.

By virtue of servicing the 703 account, JPMC was required to monitor BLMIS. It was this that led JPMC to uncover a number of red flags indicating that Madoff was engaging in fraud.

A clearer and a concise way of writing is,

By virtue of servicing the 703 account, JPMC was required had to monitor BLMIS. It was this that this led JPMC to uncover a number of several red flags indicating that Madoff was engaging in fraud.

The number on sign of verbiage: ?? More than any other sign, the word “of” will direct you to unnecessary words,

In its discussion of the issue, XYZ recognized…

Employees on this rig typically worked a twenty-one day rotation and stayed in Alaskaduring the pendency of the rotation.

Note: that the Unnecessary words can appear on the either side of the “of”.

Here is a link to get everyday tips in writing concise and clearer English. Sorry if you cannot access the site for those from Mainland China.

I agree that being verbose is an enemic problem in academic and corporate writing. However, it's not uncommo to see 'write simply and to the point', which I think means a) avoid complex language/constructions and b) don't procrastinate. You could write simply without being precise, for example, and you could be precise even though writing with complex language.

On the other hand, I think that being hyper laconic or brusque can lead to loss of detail, or fail to convey the whole picture. For example, you might think that 'of the issue' is superfluous in 'its discussion of the issue', but unless its specified previously that they are discussing the issue, how are we to know what they are talking about?

Another example:

Jonny reclined extravagantly on the weathered, archaic looking bench.

You might say, 'dear me, what a lot of unneccessary verbiage', and change it to

Jonny sat down on the bench.

In terms of what was done, it is the same thing. However, we lose the manner in which he sat, his attittude and an understanding of how the bench appeared. This may or may not be important, depending on who needs to know that Jonny sat there and why, but it is not a priori superfluous.

February 8, 2013

Wolves at the door; waiting for the pounce and seizing the moment for the jugular... Nay, I say. It all depends on how one wants to look at. View in black, it will be black, view in the wonderful colors of the rainbow, so it will be. However, life is not this easy. One must learn to drive defensively, just in case your assumptions are wrong.

February 8, 2013