Working On Me

I just had to share this story, which I ought to warn contains some rather adult languauge. For me, it shows quite vividly the passion a writer can have for words (primarily in this case his own words, but I think the more general point stands.)

My purchase of a new 80GB iPod Classic (happy birthday, me!) allows me to travel with my entire collection of music in my pocket. Ths includes records I haven't listened to in years, an some I'm sure I've never listened to at all. But at any given time, choosing what to listen to is not a trivial matter. With 3,000 songs to choose between, where do I start? Too much choice can bring paralysis. The choice to be made is simply too daunting.

Writers have the ultimate free choice, of course: a blank page. A trick they often use to snap out of the 'too much choice' trap is to set themselves artificial restrictions. For instance, they might determine to write a first person narrative without using the words 'I' or 'me' more than once per page, or write entirely in iambs or trochees. It turns out that restricting your choices can actually improve creativity.

While reviewing some standard letters with a company last week, I found some interesting redundancies:

• I write to advise you that I have now received details of your missing payment.
• Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries.
• Please be advised that if you do not respond within 14 days your plan will lapse.
• I would be most grateful if you would please complete and return the enclosed form.

I got out the editing pen and made some deletions. I don't think the meaning is changed at all. See what you think:

• I write to advise you that I have now received details of your missing payment.
• Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries.
• Please be advised that if you do not respond within 14 days your plan will lapse.
• I would be most grateful if you would please complete and return the enclosed form.

Earlier this week, I wrte about the pointlessness of the phrase 'going forward'. At the other end of the tenses spectrum, we have a similarly redundant phrase: in the past. Here are some examples of its usage in the business environment:

• In the past we used to give away promotional goods
• No-one wanted to buy our advertising in the past
• In the past, we've held monthly meetings

Now, how do these sentences sound when you remove 'in the past' from each of them? See if you can spot any change in meaning:

• We used to give away promotional goods
• No-one wanted to buy our advertising
• We've held monthly meetings

So did you find any? No, neither did I. Let's all stop using this silly phrase.

If you have any exposure at all to corporate or politicial rhetoric, you'll be familiar with use of the phrase 'going forward'. It crops up all over the place:

• Going forward figures will be provided monthly
• We have introduced a range of initiatives, which will make a big difference going forward
• Going forward we need to get better at this

It seems to mean 'from now on', which is already indicated by use of the future tense. Consider the three examples again, this time without 'going forward':

• Figures will be provided monthly
• We have introduced a range of initiatives, which will make a big difference
• We need to get better at this

The sentences seem entirely unharmed after this surgery. Indeed, I have yet to find any sentence in which 'going forward' in any way changes the meaning. Let's all agree just to stop using it. Please.

Here is a pair of words often confused and widely misunderstood. The difference between the two is best illustrated by example. Consider these two sentences:

Cats that are black are unlucky

Cats, which are black, are unlucky

The first sentence uses 'that' correctly to restrict the subject. Not all cats are unlucky: only those that are black.

But the second example doesn't restrict. Effectively it says that all cats are unlucky and that all cats are black. The commas are a real help in parsing this sentence, because they point up the subordinate clause. Imagine hypens or brackets in place of those two commas. "Which are black" is clearly an aside, without which the sentence can stand alone quite happily.

Increasingly, though, you might be presented with this hybrid usage:

Cats which are black are unlucky

Note the lack of commas. Although the use of "which" ought to position the blackness as subordinate and thus not restrict the subject, the intention may well have been so to restrict. If so, the writer has used "which" believing it to have the same effect as "that" of restricting the subject to only black cats. We know better, of course.

I've written about this before as part of a longer post on how apostrophes work. For me the daily misuse of "it's" probably represents the greatest grammatical irritant. And it is everywhere, even in the work of professional writers.

So, just a reminder. "It's" is a contraction of "it is" or sometimes "it has". That's it. There is no other usage. When you want to talk about ownership, about something that belongs to it, you use "its" - with no apostrophe. Here are some correct examples of usage of both forms:

It's not my fault

When it's good, art is a joy

It's been ages since I cried at a film

The cat licked its paws

Every career has its highs and lows, and it's unusual to be happy in your work absolutely all of the time

Here is another pair of frequently-confused words. 'Affect' is a transitive verb. This means it is something you do to something else. Examples of correct usage are:

The weather affected my sales of ice cream

There was a teacher's strike, but my son's class wasn't affected

Other factors can affect the result

Although 'effect' can be used as a verb (one can, for instance 'effect a change') it is more usually used as a noun, a thing. Here are some examples of it being used properly:

The effect of all these changes is significant

The effort involved determines the size of the effect

He was clearly suffering from the effects of his illness