Of: Difference between revisions

599 bytes added ,  26 October 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{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.
{{a|drafting|
{{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.


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 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”
 
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”.
 
Being a dead giveaway for [[passive]] constructions — “[[In the event that|in the event ''of'']] harm to the interests ''of'' the client by the broker” rather than “if the broker harms the client’s interests” — and [[Nominalisation|nominalisations]] — “I shall initiate the termination ''of'' the scheme”, rather than “I will terminate the scheme”, of prevalence neatly measures laboured. The higher your “of ratio”, the more tiring your writing will be.


===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. Lawyers have a horror of the apostrophe — possibly because they can’t remember how they work.<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>
“[[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 Drafting Style Manual''”?
Colour me crazy.
===Nominalisation dead giveaway===
===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 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}}”
 
{{sa}}
*[[An object-oriented approach to plain English]]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}