Of: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===Pompous possessives=== | ===Pompous possessives=== | ||
“[[Of]]” is the pompous writer’s favourite possessive, because it makes something fun sound austere and sonorous. And it’s hard to screw up. | “[[Of]]” is the pompous writer’s favourite possessive, because it makes something fun sound austere and sonorous. And it’s hard to screw up. Apostrophes — the grocers favourite means of indicating possession — ''terrify'' lawyers, who fear making the same mistake grocer’s do.<ref>[https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_motion_objects_to_opponents_use_of_possessives Lawyer’s Motion Objects to Opponent’s Use of Possessives] </ref> | ||
“Skywalker’s rise” doesn’t sound quite so momentous as “The Rise Of Skywalker”. “England’s Bank” sounds like some ghastly New Labour funding initiative for social housing. “The Bank of England” is incontrovertibly the Grand Old Lady of Threadneedle Street. | “Skywalker’s rise” doesn’t sound quite so momentous as “The Rise Of Skywalker”. “England’s Bank” sounds like some ghastly New Labour funding initiative for social housing. “The Bank of England” is incontrovertibly the Grand Old Lady of Threadneedle Street. | ||
Revision as of 17:36, 29 November 2021
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
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 tortured some writing, right there. To say “it is indicative of tortured writing” is to torture a sentence that could have said, “it indicates tortured writing”. This is “nominalisation” (though strictly speaking, it’s 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”).
We have a theory that “of prevalance” indicates laboured writing. The higher your “of ratio”, the worse your writing will be.
Pompous possessives
“Of” is the pompous writer’s favourite possessive, because it makes something fun sound austere and sonorous. And it’s hard to screw up. Apostrophes — the grocers favourite means of indicating possession — terrify lawyers, who fear making the same mistake grocer’s do.[1]
“Skywalker’s rise” doesn’t sound quite so momentous as “The Rise Of Skywalker”. “England’s Bank” sounds like some ghastly New Labour funding initiative for social housing. “The Bank of England” is incontrovertibly the Grand Old Lady of Threadneedle Street.
Our favourite example is dear old Ken Adams’ A Manual Of Style For Contract Drafting[2] which, despite being dedicated to style, has stubbornly mangled its very own title, through four editions and fifteen years. As it is, it’s a bit Bob Cunis: Ken could have gone the whole hog, and called it “A Manual Of Style For The Drafting Of Contracts”, or embraced his inner rebel, and called it — I dunno, a “Contract Style Manual”?
Colour me crazy.
Nominalisation dead giveaway
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”
See also
References
- ↑ Lawyer’s Motion Objects to Opponent’s Use of Possessives
- ↑ Get your copy here, folks. It’s only a hundred quid!