Business Writing

Find the Error I Missed

Every month in my monthly e-newsletter, Better Writing at Work, I include a feature called Error Quest. In it, I challenge readers to find the one error I have purposely included in a short paragraph.

Every now and then, a reader recognizes an error I did not intend. That's what happened in the current Error Quest.

I have corrected the error I intended in the paragraph below. See if you can find my unintended error.

Twenty-seven students from India joined the program in June. Among the languages they speak are Hindi, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and English. Most of them are taking a year off work to focus on their studies in business management; a few have part-time jobs.

Did you catch the error? It may not be an error in the strictest sense, but it is an example of imprecise writing.

Note: The error does not involve the names of the languages.

I will leave it to Laura to explain the error. She is a writer-editor at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States government and the person who caught my unintended error:

"In the third sentence, the antecedent for them is the list of languages in the second sentence, rather than the twenty-seven students."

In other words, my use of them in the third sentence should refer to the plural noun in the previous sentence, which happens to be languages. Of course, I intended it to refer to students.

Here is a corrected beginning of the third sentence: "Most of the students are taking . . . ."

Thank you, Laura, for your excellent eye and for taking the time to send me your comment! I am pleased you are a writer-editor in my EPA. 

Lynn
Syntax Training

Being in the Moment

I sent out our monthly e-newsletter, Better Writing at Work, yesterday. As usual we got hundreds of out-of-office messages. Here is my favorite, which came from Phillip in Germany:

"I am in the moment not in the office."

I prefer Phillip's preposition.

Lynn
Syntax Training

Will You Commit Lynn? On Commas in Direct Address

My husband Michael gets copies of my email. We are in business together, and he keeps track of what comes in when I am busy teaching business writing courses.

Last week Michael received a political email, a persuasive request with the subject line "Will You Commit, Lynn?" 

He relaxed when he noticed the comma before my name. Without it, the message might have been distressing: Will You Commit Lynn? One serious interpretation of that question would be "Will you put Lynn in an institution for people with mental illness?" A less grave meaning would be "Will you assign Lynn to this project?"

But the comma told Michael he was reading a message addressed to me--not about me. The comma indicated "direct address." 

Omitting commas in direct address is the most common punctuation error I see. These sentences from recent emails suffer from it: 

Thank you Lynn.
Many thanks Lynn.
Wonderful tips Lynn.
Thanks Ms. Gaertner-Johnston.
Thanks for the info Lynn.

Because the writers are addressing me, a comma should come before my name. 

Will you commit, dear reader, to using a comma when you address your readers directly?

Lynn
Syntax Training

 

Editors, Copyeditors, Proofreaders--Whose Job Is It?

The other day a client emailed to tell me she had seen me quoted in an online newsletter. Always thoughtful, she sent me the link to the article.

I excitedly clicked the link (it is still exciting to be quoted). But my excitement withered when, seeing the article, I realized my name was misspelled--twice--and the name of this blog was wrong. 

I wrote to the newsletter editor asking that the errors be fixed. When she wrote back to apologize, she said, "Our newsletter goes through a rigorous editing cycle with numerous editors, copyeditors, and proofers looking at each issue. Unfortunately, the misspellings somehow slipped through."

How can a misspelled name and an incorrect blog name get past "numerous" people? I am guessing the problem is that the editorial team doesn't have a clear sense of who does what. Numerous people should not be checking for facts such as correct names and their proper spelling. Only one person should.

Here is my view of the roles of editors, copyeditors, and proofreaders, based on my experience:

Editors look at the big picture. They should be asking questions like these:

• Do we have the right articles in this issue? Are they timely, fresh, and complementary? Do they offer value to our readers? Do they support our mission and goals?

Copyeditors make sure all content is clear, concise, and accurate. They edit pieces to make them more enjoyable to read. They cut extra words and unnecessary content. And they do their best to make sure the content in each piece is accurate.

In the name of accuracy, the copyeditor of the article that quoted me should have gone online to verify the correct spelling of my name. He or she would have found easily that "Johnson" is wrong when Google asked "Do you mean 'Lynn Gaertner-Johnston'?" or when Bing offered two versions.

Then the copyeditor could have searched to confirm that "Better Writing" was the name of my blog. It would be simple to recognize that as an error and learn that "Business Writing" is the correct name.

Proofreaders do a final check to see that everything is correct. They do not edit--they check for correctness.

Proofreaders ensure that all the copyeditors' changes make it to the final version. They are also the backup people for any errors the copyeditors may have overlooked--errors in grammar, usage, capitalization, etc. And they check the final layout for consistency, correct pagination, headers, captions, and other aspects. Proofreaders catch spelling errors too, but it is not their job to look up proper names to confirm them--unless the editor has assigned that job to them.

Of the "numerous editors, copyeditors, and proofers" who missed the misspelling of my name and misstatement of my blog's name, the editors are innocent. It isn't their responsibility to check, but they must know who is checking. Fact checking is typically part of the copyeditors' role.  And the proofreaders need to check with the copyeditors to be sure such details have been verified.

No, perfection is not an option. But when the editorial team knows what everyone's job is, near-perfection is possible.  

Lynn
Syntax Training

I excitedly clicked the link (it is still exciting to be quoted). But my excitement withered when, seeing the article, I realized my name was misspelled--twice--and the name of this blog was wrong. 

I wrote to the newsletter editor asking that the errors be fixed. When she wrote back to apologize, she said, "Our newsletter goes through a rigorous editing cycle with numerous editors, copyeditors, and proofers looking at each issue. Unfortunately, the misspellings somehow slipped through."

How can a misspelled name and an incorrect blog name get past "numerous" people? I am guessing the problem is that the editorial team doesn't have a clear sense of who does what. Numerous people should not be checking for facts such as correct names and their proper spelling. Only one person should.

Here is my view of the roles of editors, copyeditors, and proofreaders, based on my experience:

Editors look at the big picture. They should be asking questions like these:

Copyeditors make sure all content is clear, concise, and accurate. They edit pieces to make them more enjoyable to read. They cut extra words and unnecessary content. And they do their best to make sure the content in each piece is accurate.

In the name of accuracy, the copyeditor of the article that quoted me should have gone online to verify the correct spelling of my name. He or she would have found easily that "Johnson" is wrong when Google asked "Do you mean 'Lynn Gaertner-Johnston'?" or when Bing offered two versions.

Then the copyeditor could have searched to confirm that "Better Writing" was the name of my blog. It would be simple to recognize that as an error and learn that "Business Writing" is the correct name.

Proofreaders do a final check to see that everything is correct. They do not edit--they check for correctness.

Proofreaders ensure that all the copyeditors' changes make it to the final version. They are also the backup people for any errors the copyeditors may have overlooked--errors in grammar, usage, capitalization, etc. And they check the final layout for consistency, correct pagination, headers, captions, and other aspects. Proofreaders catch spelling errors too, but it is not their job to look up proper names to confirm them--unless the editor has assigned that job to them.

Of the "numerous editors, copyeditors, and proofers" who missed the misspelling of my name and misstatement of my blog's name, the editors are innocent. It isn't their responsibility to check, but they must know who is checking. Fact checking is typically part of the copyeditors' role.  And the proofreaders need to check with the copyeditors to be sure such details have been verified.

No, perfection is not an option. But when the editorial team knows what everyone's job is, near-perfection is possible.  

Lynn
Syntax Training

Be Cautious With Blog Comments

In the past couple of weeks, two people who commented on this blog asked me to remove their comments. Their requests inspired me to share these cautions:

1. Don't share anything you don't want a potential employer to find. 
   The first request for me to remove a comment was from someone who had mentioned contacting an attorney about her dismissal from a job. She had included her full name after the comment. With her job search ending in closed doors, she feared that an Internet search was leading potential employers to her comment. That's a reasonable fear. Employers are not eager to hire people who hire attorneys.
2. Don't share anything you don't want the entire world to find. The second request was from someone who had included her email address in her comment.
3. Don't share anything that makes you look mean, pig-headed, or supremely pompous. People have made comments on this blog that they ought to ask me to delete. I do delete the mean comments on my own. But the pig-headed, pompous ones that stir up discussions do so at the writer's expense. It's a bad idea to come across as ill-tempered and self-righteous, when the world catches you doing it long after you have forgotten that nasty, critical mood you were in.
4. Don't share any personal information that will lead criminals to your doorstep, or virtual doorstep. Because of comments on Facebook (we think), my elderly father was tempted into a con that might have ended violently.

What cautions would you add? Please share them.

Lynn
Syntax Training

Capitalizing Hyphenated Words in Titles

In a recent business writing class, a careful editor questioned me about capitalizing up in Writing Tune-Up for Peak Performance. In a hyphenated compound word, shouldn't a little word like up be lower case?

As usual, the answer is that it depends on whose style you follow.

I like the style promoted by The Gregg Reference Manual because it is simple and straightforward. Regarding hyphenated words, Gregg says, "In a heading or title, capitalize all the elements except articles, short prepositions, and short conjunctions." In Gregg, short means fewer than four letters.

Following the Gregg way, both parts of Tune-Up are capitalized because up is an adverb in that expression. The same is true of Follow-Up, Runner-Up, Shoo-In, Run-In, Trade-In, Set-To, Turn-On, and Take-Off. All those little ups, ins, tos, ons, and offs are adverbs, and Gregg capitalizes adverbs in titles.

The Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications makes capitalizing hyphenated words a bit more complex. According to Microsoft, you should capitalize the second word of a compound word in a title only if "it is a noun or proper adjective, it is an 'e-word,' or the words have equal weight." Microsoft gives these examples: E-Commerce, Cross-Reference (words of equal weight), Run-Time, Add-in, How-to, Take-off. (Gregg would render those last three as Add-In, How-To, and Take-Off.)

The Chicago Manual of Style takes a more complex approach to capitalizing hyphenated words. It agrees with Gregg that adverbs should be capitalized. Yet it recommends Run-in and Take-off because in and off are short and unstressed. It suggests Hand-me-downs for the same reason. Beyond that, Chicago does not capitalize the second part of a spelled-out hyphenated number (Twenty-first and Two-thirds). I like its approach in a final rule: "Break a rule when it doesn't work." Well done, Chicago.

If you had not already recognized the value of a company or team style sheet, these varying rules make a strong case for creating one. No more stressing over which hyphenated words should be capitalized in a title! Just stress once, decide, and record your decision.

I hope this review was helpful. Next question?

Lynn
Syntax Training

Being Real in Business Writing

Before I specialized in business writing, I wanted to be a fiction writer, and I spent many years trying. One of the books I read to help me develop as a writer was Brenda Ueland's classic If You Want to Write.

No doubt other writers have learned lessons from Ms. Ueland. But my lesson--the one I think of daily--was to tell the truth. To me as a business and blog writer, telling the truth means choosing the most precise word to describe something, whether it is a situation, an emotion, or an object. Rather than choosing the first words that come to mind, it is important to describe each thing accurately, to tell the truth about it, to be real.

Ms. Ueland called this "microscopic truthfulness."  

Several days ago I wrote a blog post about a man who sent me an email with more errors than sentences. He was writing to ask me whether he could write a guest entry for this site. When I first posted the entry, I titled it "Frowning at My Inbox"--or something like that. My thought was that it would be normal to frown at a message riddled with errors, and I was making a contrast with the smiley face that closed the man's message.

But after I uploaded the entry, I realized it felt false, at least to me. It rang false because I actually hadn't frowned when I read his email. I had smiled a kind of a twisted smile of disbelief and breathed out in something like disdain. 

I quickly renamed the entry "Smiling at My Inbox" and changed the ending to "Yes, I was smiling--and sighing." Sighing didn't quite describe the breath I took, but I let it go.

As you can see, I didn't really let it go. I am still thinking about the right words to describe my reaction to the man's error-filled message. 

I share this example with you because I believe being real in business writing--being precise and truthful in one's descriptions--makes a difference. Brenda Ueland wrote, "The more you wish to describe a Universal [like my choosing the common idea of frowning, although I hadn't frowned] the more minutely and truthfully you must describe a Particular."

Do you, like me, think Ueland's "microscopic truthfulness" has a place in business writing? In blogs? In Tweets? On web pages? I would love to hear your view.

Lynn
Syntax Training