Of: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Anywhere else in a sentence, it is indicative of tortured writing. See: I just did it there. I said “it is indicative of tortured writing” when I could have said “it indicates tortured writing”. This is a kind of [[nominalisation]] (though strictly speaking it is [[adjectivisation]]) in that it guts a perfectly good {{tag|verb}} (“to indicate”) replaces it with a more boring [[verb]] (“[[to be]]”), turns it into an {{tag|adjective}} (relating to the subject of the sentence “[[to be]]”). | Anywhere else in a sentence, it is indicative of tortured writing. See: I just did it there. I said “it is indicative of tortured writing” when I could have said “it indicates tortured writing”. This is a kind of [[nominalisation]] (though strictly speaking it is [[adjectivisation]]) in that it guts a perfectly good {{tag|verb}} (“to indicate”) replaces it with a more boring [[verb]] (“[[to be]]”), turns it into an {{tag|adjective}} (relating to the subject of the sentence “[[to be]]”). | ||
Other mendacious uses of “[[of]]”: look out for the character string “...[[ion of]]”. This is a dead giveaway for a [[passive]] [[nominalisation]]. For example, "''[[In the event of]] a determinat[[ion of]] an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} by the {{isdaprov|Non-affected Party}}...''" — makes you | Other mendacious uses of “[[of]]”: look out for the character string “...[[ion of]]”. This is a dead giveaway for a [[passive]] [[nominalisation]]. For example, "''[[In the event of]] a determinat[[ion of]] an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} by the {{isdaprov|Non-affected Party}}...''" — makes you weep, doesn’t it — can be less tiresomely (and ambiguously) rendered as “[[if]] the {{isdaprov|Non-affected Party}} determines there has been an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}” | ||
{{plainenglish}} | {{plainenglish}} | ||
Revision as of 17:02, 31 July 2018
A preposition. Once you’ve put one at the end of a sentence, it’s a habit you’ll never tire of.
Anywhere else in a sentence, it is indicative of tortured writing. See: I just did it there. I said “it is indicative of tortured writing” when I could have said “it indicates tortured writing”. This is a kind of nominalisation (though strictly speaking it is adjectivisation) in that it guts a perfectly good verb (“to indicate”) replaces it with a more boring verb (“to be”), turns it into an adjective (relating to the subject of the sentence “to be”).
Other mendacious uses of “of”: look out for the character string “...ion of”. This is a dead giveaway for a passive nominalisation. For example, "In the event of a determination of an Event of Default by the Non-affected Party..." — makes you weep, doesn’t it — can be less tiresomely (and ambiguously) rendered as “if the Non-affected Party determines there has been an Event of Default”
Plain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings