Legal Writing

A Small Contribution on an Adverbial Particle

If you’re an attorney — especially one who cares for the finer points of English — then you should (in my opinion) subscribe to Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day. (Click here.)

If you write to persuade and strive to improve, it’s like having a writer’s little treasure chest.

I’m a subscriber, and I just looked at today’s tip, which follows up on a tip from last week about phrasal verbs.

In today’s tip, Garner offers four caveats. Here are the first two:

First, when using [a phrasal verb], include the entire phrase and not just the primary verb. Don’t say that two things “cancel each other” if what they’re really doing is “canceling each other out.”

Second, don’t use a phrasal verb if the adverbial particle is simply baggage that doesn’t add to meaning. Thus, don’t say “meet up with” if “meet” suffices. Don’t say “connect up” or “divide up” if “connect” or “divide” suffices.

I find a contradiction between them. The first says, “Expand.” The second says, “Don’t.”

______
Well . . . here’s my 2¢ contribution:

As a general rule, less is more — the fewer words it takes to say something, the better. (There are quite a few exceptions, but they all serve some purpose.)

In addition, some things cancel others. In this world, a positive cancels a negative; cold cancels heat; dark cancels light.

In mathematics, one operation cancels another. There’s no in or out about it, and it’s entirely correct to say, “These two effects cancel one another.” Out is extra.

The same applies to printing. You print a page. You don’t print it in or out (even though printed pages come out of the printer).

OK. It’s only a space and three characters, but it’s a solid cut, and every bit counts.

Full post as published by Set in Style on July 19, 2010 (boomark / email).