Of: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|plainenglish|}}A {{tag|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 | 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’s an [[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]]”). | ||
Of is the pompous writer’s favourite possessive, because it makes something fun sound austere and sonorous. | |||
“Skywalker’s rise” doesn’t sound quite so momentous as “The Rise Of Skywalker”. Likewise, England’s Bank sounds like some ghastly New Labour funding initiative for social housing, not the Grand Old Lady of Threadneedle Street. | |||
But our favourite example is dear old Ken Adams’ ''A Manual Of Style For Contract Drafting''<ref>Get your copy [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manual-Style-Contract-Drafting/dp/1634259645 here], folks. It’s only a hundred quid!</ref> 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 Drafting Style Manual”? | |||
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}}” | 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}}” | ||
Revision as of 12:09, 6 July 2020
|
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 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’s an 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”).
Of is the pompous writer’s favourite possessive, because it makes something fun sound austere and sonorous.
“Skywalker’s rise” doesn’t sound quite so momentous as “The Rise Of Skywalker”. Likewise, England’s Bank sounds like some ghastly New Labour funding initiative for social housing, not the Grand Old Lady of Threadneedle Street.
But our favourite example is dear old Ken Adams’ A Manual Of Style For Contract Drafting[1] 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 Drafting Style Manual”?
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”