Rumple Foreskin
The AH Patriarch
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Posts
- 11,109
For the edification of the elite and the mystification of the masses.
Rumple Foreskin
--
Garner's Usage Tip of the Day
Buried Verbs.
Today: What's Wrong with Them?
Why uncover buried verbs (or "nominalizations," as jargonmongers call them)?
Three reasons are detectable to the naked eye: first, you generally eliminate prepositions in the process ("perform an analysis of" becomes "analyze"); second, you often eliminate weak be-verbs by replacing them with so-called action verbs ("is in violation of" becomes "violates"); and third, you humanize the text by saying who does what -- something often obscured by buried verbs ("upon inspection of the letters" might become "when I inspected the letters").
A fourth reason is not detectable to the naked eye, though. It is the sum of the three reasons already mentioned. For example, I might write this: "After the transformation of nominalizations, the text has fewer abstractions, so readers' visualization of the discussion finds enhancement." Or I could make the readers' job far more pleasant by writing this: "Uncovering buried verbs makes writing more concrete, so readers can more easily see what you're talking about."
Though long neglected in books about writing, buried verbs ought to be a sworn enemy of every serious writer. In technical writing, they often constitute an even more serious problem than passive voice.
-------------------------
Drawn from Garner's Modern American Usage
(0-19-516191-2, Oxford University Press, Fall 2003)
Rumple Foreskin
--
Garner's Usage Tip of the Day
Buried Verbs.
Today: What's Wrong with Them?
Why uncover buried verbs (or "nominalizations," as jargonmongers call them)?
Three reasons are detectable to the naked eye: first, you generally eliminate prepositions in the process ("perform an analysis of" becomes "analyze"); second, you often eliminate weak be-verbs by replacing them with so-called action verbs ("is in violation of" becomes "violates"); and third, you humanize the text by saying who does what -- something often obscured by buried verbs ("upon inspection of the letters" might become "when I inspected the letters").
A fourth reason is not detectable to the naked eye, though. It is the sum of the three reasons already mentioned. For example, I might write this: "After the transformation of nominalizations, the text has fewer abstractions, so readers' visualization of the discussion finds enhancement." Or I could make the readers' job far more pleasant by writing this: "Uncovering buried verbs makes writing more concrete, so readers can more easily see what you're talking about."
Though long neglected in books about writing, buried verbs ought to be a sworn enemy of every serious writer. In technical writing, they often constitute an even more serious problem than passive voice.
-------------------------
Drawn from Garner's Modern American Usage
(0-19-516191-2, Oxford University Press, Fall 2003)
