82,891
edits
Of: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
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}} | ||