Of: Difference between revisions

Of (view source)

Revision as of 08:26, 26 October 2022

39 bytes removed , 26 October 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,063

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|plainenglish|
-[[File:Brian.jpg|450px|thumb|center|Would it have been as good if it was called ''Brian’s Life'', though?]]
+{{image|Brian|jpg|Would it have been as good if they called it ''Brian’s Life'', though?}}
 }}A {{tag|preposition}}. Once you’ve put one at the end of a sentence, it’s a habit you’ll never tire of.
 Of is a harmless little fellow, but it can be an indication of tortured writing.
-See? I just tortured some writing, right there. To say “it can be an indication of tortured writing” is to take “it ''indicates'' tortured writing” and draw it across a rack, bludgeoning it with a new, blunt, colourless verb (“to be”), cruelly eviscerating the perfectly adequate verb that already was there (“indicates”), ghoulishly rearranging it as a noun (“indication”), and putting them in relation to each other with a new preposition: “of”
+See? I just tortured some writing, right there. To say “it can be an indication of tortured writing” is to take “it ''indicates'' tortured writing” and draw it across a rack, bludgeoning it with a new, blunt, colourless verb (“[[to be]]”), cruelly eviscerating the perfectly adequate verb that already was there (“indicates”), ghoulishly rearranging it as a [[noun]] (“indication”), and putting them in relation to each other with a new [[preposition]]: “of”
-This is “[[nominalisation]]” (the only thing worse is adjectivisation: to take that same perfectly suitable verb and make it into an adjective: “it can be ''indicative'' of tortured writing”.)
+This is “[[nominalisation]]” (the only thing worse is adjectivisation: to take that same perfectly suitable [[verb]] and make it into an [[adjective]]: “it can be ''indicative'' of tortured writing”.)
-In either case, “of” is the giveaway. Being a preposition, “of” puts two things in relation to each other, and so tends to favour basic vocabulary over interesting words that describe that relation. So: “piece of writing” over “poem”, “letter”, “extract”, or “passage”;
+In either case, “[[of]]” is the giveaway. Being a preposition, “of” puts two things in relation to each other, and so tends to favour basic vocabulary over interesting words that describe that relation. So: “piece of writing” over “poem”, “letter”, “extract”, or “passage”.
-We have a theory that “of” prevalance is a good measure of how laboured a passage is. The higher your “[[of ratio]]”, the worse your writing will be.
+Use “of prevalence” measure how laboured your writing is. 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.<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 funding initiative for social housing, where “The Bank of England” sounds like the Grand Old Lady of Threadneedle Street.
-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 Style Manual''”?
+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 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.