----------------------------------------------------------------- THE BETTER WRITING SKILLS NEWSLETTER, September 2007 By Tim North of Scribe Consulting (http://www.scribe.com.au) http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome to the September 2007 Better Writing Skills newsletter. IN THIS ISSUE 1. Brad Pitt and English grammar -- there's a connection! 2. "Me" versus "myself" 3. Should I believe what I read online? 4. "Accredited" versus "credited" 5. Just for fun Your comments and questions are always welcome. Just send e-mail to: info@BetterWritingSkills.com Cheers, Tim North Perth, Western Australia ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Brad Pitt and English grammar -- there's a connection! ----------------------------------------------------------------- My first correspondent this month, Kellie, writes: There is one thing about both writing and speaking that never fails to disappoint me when I hear it, and that is the addition of 'of' where it isn't necessary. An excellent example is in the movie "Meet Joe Black", wherein Brad Pitt delivers his lines with uncustomary aplomb, until he says, "He is too honourable of a man ... ", rather than, "he is too honourable a man ..." ... Is the adding of 'of' in this way becoming correct? I'm with you on this one, Kellie. The use of "of" in the example above seems unnecessary. A quick bit of Googling reveals these statistics: "too honorable of a" 749 hits (54%) "too honorable a" 633 hits (46%) (I've used the US spelling of "honourable" here in order to get more hits and thus give better statistics.) For this example, both usages seem equally popular. The statistics might be biased by the common citing of the film quotation, though, so let's try another example: "too nice of a" 28,400 hits (29%) "too nice a" 68,000 hits (71%) Ah; that's a very different result. Most people have omitted the word "of" in this example. Let's try one more to be sure: "too long of a" 153,000 hits (14%) "too long a" 905,000 hits (86%) Similar results. (Incidentally, because I was using Google to search for phrases, I included the quotation marks in my search. Without them, Google would search for the individual words in any order.) So, it seems that both usages are common enough to be called correct; however, omitting the "of" seems to be the more common usage, at least on the web. Hope this helps. -- (c) 2007 Tim North: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2. "Me" versus "myself" ----------------------------------------------------------------- My next correspondent, Diane, has written in with a question about choosing between "me" and "myself". She asked which of the following is preferable: All employees under my leadership, as well as ME, perform the required activities associated with ... All employees under my leadership, as well as MYSELF, perform the required activities associated with ... My first reaction is to want to simplify this slightly wordy sentence. In practice, I'd prefer something like this: My employees and I perform the activities associated with ... If I was to choose between the two existing forms, though, I'd compare traditional advice with contemporary practice. Traditional advice has usually been to avoid unnecessarily using "myself" in place of "I" or "me". For example, in "Common Errors in English", Paul Brians writes: Use "myself" only when you have used "I" earlier in the same sentence: I am not particularly fond of goat cheese myself. I kept half the loot for myself. This traditional point of view makes clear that we shouldn't use "myself" in Diane's sentence. That leaves "me" as the preferred choice. Contemporary usage, though, often discards this traditional advice. For example, a bit of Googling reveals: "All employees, including me," 76 hits (33%) "All employees, including myself," 156 hits (67%) While traditional usage recommends the "me" form, we can see that -- on the web at least -- the "myself" form is more popular in this instance. Once again, we see that English is a language in flux. Traditional practice is changing. Some may see this as a bad thing. Others, including me, (or should that be "myself included"?) see it as inevitable and a sign of a healthy, dynamic language. Hope this helps. -- (c) 2007 Tim North: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Should I believe what I read online? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Long-time readers of this newsletter know that I frequently refer to Google to spot trends on how language is changing. Google and a few other web sites have become such a part of my daily existence that I'd feel helpless if I couldn't access them. This dependence on the web comes at a cost, though. Online, not everything you read is true; not everything you read is impartial, and not everything you read tells the complete story. So healthy cynicism leaves me with the question: How do I know if what I read online is reliable? Here then are eight questions that you should consider before placing too much trust in a web site: 1. Does the site clearly identify the name of the individuals or organisations behind it, or is the information presented anonymously? 2. Does the site provide clear contact details? 3. Do the contact details include a bricks-and-mortar address, or just a (relatively anonymous) e-mail address? 4. Do the authors of the content clearly identify that they have qualifications in the relevant areas? 5. Are there any commercial relationships identified or implied that might cause the authors to be biased for or against the topic in question? 6. Does the site carry advertising? (If so, its goal may be to maximise the number of visitors and thus ads displayed. This might encourage an unnecessarily controversial style in order to attract attention.) 7. Is the information up-to-date? Does every page clearly identify when its content was last updated or reviewed? 8. Does the site explain where and how it got its information, or are you required to take it all on faith? With questions like these in mind, you can easily give the sites the visit a reliability score. This will help you to determine who -- and what -- you believe online. -- (c) 2007 Tim North: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do you know someone who'd like this newsletter? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do you have a friend or colleague who'd find the Better Writing Skills newsletter interesting? If so, please feel free to send a copy of this issue to them. Alternatively, please tell them they can browse back issues here: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com/newsletter.html Thanks for helping to make this newsletter so successful! ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4. "Accredited" versus "credited" ----------------------------------------------------------------- My final correspondent this month, Ronda, asked about the difference between writing "accredited to" and "credited to". "Accredited" is most commonly used as an adjective (a describing word). In this context it means to be given official approval or recognition. For example: He was an accredited representative of the Government. We sent young Jimmy to an accredited trainer. Magic is not an accredited explanation for why things happen. "Credited" is most commonly used as a verb (a doing word). In this context it has several common usages. For example: I had not credited them with much intelligence. The music and lyrics are credited to Paul Simon. We have credited $500 to your account. It should be noted that both words are usable as an adjective and as a verb. The usages shown here, though, seem to be the most common ones. Ronda ended by saying: I am listing various people responsible for producing a DVD and I have a credit list. I'm not quite sure what wording Ronda has in mind, but a list of names could simply be titled "Credits". Alternatively, you could use "credited to" if you were writing full sentences. Hope this helps. -- (c) 2007 Tim North: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Just for fun ----------------------------------------------------------------- This month have a look at "Fun with words" -- a page that describes itself as "A Celebration of the English Language": http://rinkworks.com/words/ Enjoy. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Would you like more help with your writing? ----------------------------------------------------------------- On my Better Writing Skills web site, you'll find my range of jargon-free, downloadable e-books that will make you a better writer. These e-books will help you with business proposal writing, report writing, term papers, technical writing, grant writing, creative writing and more. http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com/ebooks.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- REPRODUCING THIS MATERIAL Permission is granted to reproduce those articles that are copyrighted by Tim North, subject to them not being modified or sold. Please provide a clickable link back to: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com Additional freely republishable articles can be found here: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com/free-articles.html FUTURE MAILINGS You can prevent (or receive) future mailings by visiting this page: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com/newsletter.html This is a GENUINE service, and you will not receive any unsolicited e-mail as a result. You have my word on it. -----------------------------------------------------------------