Example: He tried to firmly but politely decline the offer. Using multiple adverbs between "to" and a verb can create an awkward or unclear sentence. Targets multiple adverbs between "to" and a verb. Words in Split infinitives (more than one) This is good minimalist practice, and it helps the prose to get rid of the word "largely." But this doesn't turn into good writing until you go further. I would tell this person to have the character pick up one of the bottles, touch it, and give us the information in a way other than "old." "Largely" you can cross out, but what are you going to do about "old" in here? What does an "old" bottle look like? What are the shapes? Colors? Smells? What do the labels look like or feel like if you touched one. If I were editing the example sentence, I would tell this writer that the word "old" is the more challenging problem.
The phrase largely decorated is replaced by decorated only. Example: They largely decorated the kitchen with old bottles. Targets words that express uncertainty or lessen the impact of a statement. I can only assume these descriptions were created in Word while using these new corrective settings. Eliminating redundant or unnecessary words often hinder readability. Wordiness: Targets redundant and needless words. In the description of wordiness, I can cut 6 words with no effort: Eliminating redundant or unnecessary words often improves readability. Or, as these places are known, every office in the world. Except when you work in a place where you have to say something happened while not assigning blame. This will be corrected to The man saw the dog. Use active voice whenever possible to be more concise and avoid possible confusion. Targets passive voice sentences with a known actor, i.e. Even though it's easier to have this stuff corrected automatically, we're starting to butt up against the lines where writing is a craft, and part of craft is understanding that the most efficient way to do something is not going to be the most satisfying, and therefore might not be the "right" way. More likely in your lifetime than in mine. We may very well see the rise of AI authors in our lifetimes. But you know what the difference is? The human being isn’t satisfied in the same way by the acts of programming a 3D object and throwing a vase on the wheel. Pottery is something that could go out of style pretty damn fast. Here comes the part where I reveal that I'm a grumpy old man.
Because I am old-fashioned, I think it’s a good thing to do, not a good thing to have done for you. Here holding negotiations is corrected to negotiating. Example: The trade union is holding negotiations with the employers. Consider using a single verb instead of nouns, where possible. Targets phrases relying on many nouns which need extra words to introduce them. When someone uses a term like “headhunting,” they mean headhunting, not recruiting.
A "headhunting" firm (terminology I understand is leaving the common lexicon, but we're working with the example we were given) is a term that makes a point of what the firm is doing, and also that they're doing it in a shady way. Jargon exists because there is the need for specificity. If Word is successful in this endeavor, the result is a homogenized, corporate voice. Example: The company hired a well-known headhunting firm. Consider using more common language that is likely to be understood by everyone. Targets jargon, technical terminology, or abbreviations which may confuse readers.
I'm harping on one example, but if it's the selected example, you'd think it'd be rock solid, right? Take, for example, a situation where the word “magnitude” is better than “size.” The "magnitude" of a surgical procedure to save a hedgehog makes more sense than the "size" of the procedure, unless you want to hear jokes about it. I don’t have faith in Word’s ability to do this well. Example: The magnitude of the problem is far beyond the scope of humanitarian aid. Targets complex and abstract words, and suggests using a simpler word to present a clear message and a more approachable tone. I pulled Microsoft's descriptions for some of their newer features, what they do and how they function. Er, replaced.Īre these new, beefed-up options bad? Do I just hate being told what to do? Do they signal the death of human intelligence? Am I threatened by that? Are these the same questions I ask when a sandwich joint makes menu changes? The newest iteration of Word corrects more than ever. It's like telling your friend, "And that's when my dad done died." and your friend says, "You really shouldn't say he 'done' died." It HAS to interrupt you while you're talking, and you get the distinct feeling that it's not really listening to what you're saying. Microsoft Word has always been that know-it-all prick that's correcting your spelling and grammar.
0 kommentar(er)
