Edit your
writing
1. The scenario
When
talking to someone, we may not always be able to phrase our thoughts
appropriately and can thus get into trouble. Luckily, when we write, we have a
chance to edit (correct and/or improve) what we’ve written.
Our
write-up could contain several errors—spelling, punctuation, wrong word choice,
incomplete structures, inappropriate linking words, missing logic or sequencing
of thoughts etc.
Most
of us, however, do not bother to take a look at what we put in print. It never
occurs to us that what we’ve said can be confusing, embarrassing, vague to
readers. We aren’t worried about the image that what we’ve shared in writing
can create in the minds of readers. If we did, we’d definitely go over it. At
the minimum, spelling disasters can be avoided.
2. Editing
Editing is like breathing. It gives life
and health to our writing. When we edit, we take care of simple mistakes in
grammar, spelling and punctuation. When we edit, we remove or add ideas or
sentences, we rearrange them for better presentation.
When we edit, we
are improving our thought process and its expression through a medium, which in
this case is English. Doing something well is in itself its reward.
3.
Tips for error-free writing
Bear in mind the following tips as you are
writing:
1. Construct sentences that are direct, simple, short, vigorous, lucid.
2. Use concrete, simple, short words that the reader can understand
without recourse to
a dictionary. Avoid ‘cliches’, Latin, French or Greek words.
“He (Dev Anand) might be 84, but his join
de vivre was more convincing
than his black hair.”
The
phrase in bold is a French expression.
3. Achieve clarity by breaking down a longer sentence, if necessary,
into two or more
shorter sentences.
4. Though long sentences with a main idea and several sub-thoughts are a
common
feature in any good writing, see that the linking does not confuse the
reader.
5. Use specific words [blue/red], not vague
ones [brightly-coloured].
Use concrete words [rain/fog], not abstract ones [bad weather].
Use plain words [began, said, end], not [commenced, stated, terminated].
Make positive statements [he was poor] instead of negative [he was not
rich].
Use active voice [the police took no action]; use the passive voice only
when it can
express a thought better or is essential to convey a thought with or
without the ‘by-
phrase [no action was taken].
6. Avoid using more words as a group when they don’t add to the meaning:
‘the question is ….’ is crisper than ‘the question as to whether…..’, ‘not
withstanding
the fact that’ is too long-winding whereas ‘[al]though’ is concise etc.
7. Avoid the common error of using expressions to indicate ‘scope’
[quantifiers] with
absolutes: quite impossible, glaringly
obvious, most
essential
adjectives: true
facts, active/serious
consideration, definite
decision,
unfilled
vacancy, integral
part
The underlined expressions are superfluous and hence meaningless.
8. Use one main clause in one sentence.
9. Vary the length of sentences, avoid repetition of the same
subject.
10. Take care of ‘concord’ and don’t mix up tenses.
11. Avoid dangling modifiers [that cannot sensibly modify any word in a
sentence]:
After studying for two days,
the test was easy.
After studying for two days, I found
the test easy. [or]
Because I studied for two days, I
found the test easy.
Being very tired, the alarm
was not heard.
Being
very tired, I slept through the alarm.
Being a vegetarian, the options were not
many.
Being a vegetarian, I didn’t have
many options.
12. Avoid misplaced adverbial:
Floating peacefully near the oil rig, we saw two whales.
This sentence actually means that ‘we’ were ‘floating’, which is
meaningless.
But it should have been written as:
We saw two whales floating peacefully near
the oilrig.
13. Use parallel listings and headings:
1 2
|
Each item in a list should have the same
structure but the list in box 1 has a sentence, phrases and a single word. Box
2 contains the same list with the same structure for all items—phrases.
________________________________________________________________________
Editing
1. Keep your
writing aside for a whole day or for an hour or two and give your mind a
little rest. After such rest, your mind
will be fresh, and you’ll now be able to look at
what you’ve written with a clear mind. As
you read through, some simple errors like
spelling and elementary errors in sentence
structure jump at you, and you might even
be puzzled how you could have made those
errors. You’ll be able to identify sentences
that are not properly linked, and you’ll
know that you knew words which you could
have used instead of the ones you’ve
used.
2. Read what
you’ve written as its writer.
Read
through the whole text without changing anything. Make notes as you
check for continuity of thought flow
from one thought to another, one paragraph to
another:
· Have I said all
I wanted to say?
· Is
everything I’ve said linked logically at the thought level?
· Is
there a thought or an idea and its elaboration that are out of
context and that affect the logical
sequence?
· Do the
paragraphs have topic sentences?
· Are the topic
sentences appropriately developed with relevant
elaborations and details?
· Do the topic
sentences elaborate the central thesis [the topic]
sufficiently well for the reader to follow your thought process?
· Are your
thoughts/concepts within the level of your reader’s
comprehension level? [For this you should know your readers well.]
|
3. Use your notes and make changes or fill gaps in your
thinking; add or
eliminate or reframe topic sentences and/or
sentences that support the
topic sentences.
4. Now read the
piece as its reader [how a reader will understand it].
5. Read your writing aloud; this will help locate weaknesses
and errors better than when
you read it silently:
As
a reader
· am
I able to understand my thoughts with the help of the words,
sentence structures and paragraphs I’ve
used?
· do
I see any defect in the development of the topic through the topic
sentences of each paragraph?
· do
I also see any problem in the development of the topic sentences of
the paragraphs through the sentences
that follow as major and
minor details?
· do
I find any weaknesses in my logic or in elaborations or expansions
supporting the topic sentences?
|
6. Make notes as
you did last time. Match this with that of the previous one. There are
bound to be mismatches, set them right.
7. Now read your
work for errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and choice of words.
The best way to detect spelling and punctuation errors
is to read from bottom up. When you read from the last sentence upward
and end with the first sentence, you’re not looking for the thought flow, and
so errors will be visible now. Use a blank piece of paper to cover all the
lines except the one you’re reading. Move the paper upward as you read line
by line until you reach the first sentence.
|
Editing continues:
To get answers to
the questions asked in 2, 5 and 7, try these steps:
1. Write down the main point of each
paragraph in the margin. This main point, that
is, the topic sentence, is derived
from the topic. After reading each paragraph, if
you can’t find the main points,
there is a problem with some or all the
paragraphs. If, by any chance, you
find two main ideas in one paragraph, you
need to remove one and use it to
write another paragraph. This means you’ll have
to rewrite and reshape the
paragraphs.
2. After noting down all the main
points, take a look at these and check if they
have expanded or developed the topic logically. If they have, one
problem is less.
If they haven’t, read those main points that don’t go with the topic,
either modify
them and the related paragraphs or eliminate them.
These two steps
should take care of unity, coherence and development at the thought level.
3. Now you can check for structural
connection between sentences and between
paragraphs. See if appropriate word
or phrase ‘connectors’ link sentences and
paragraphs to each other and mark
the ‘transition’ between ideas, and the flow of
ides is smooth.
4. Check for unnecessary repetitiveness
of ideas. If they exist, avoid the
repetition. Or make sure that the
repetition is essential to comprehension or for
emphasis.
5. Now look for all grammatical
errors:
· incomplete sentences [without
subjects or verbs]
· run-on sentences [two independent clauses together without the
proper
punctuation or connecting words.]
· sentences separated by commas instead of full stops, conjunctions,
semi-
colons, linking expressions
· tenses, concord, articles, parallel structure, prepositions, extra
words.
6. See if the words you’ve used to form sentences do convey or express
your
thoughts without confusing the reader.
________________________________________________________________________
What do we use as basis to call
something an error?
The English have their English, the
Americans, theirs, the Australians, theirs and the New Zealanders, theirs.
Whereas we, Indians, have no English of our own because we continue to use
British English as standard. Today’s youth seem to use certain expressions from
American English like ‘cool’, ‘an admit card’ and follow American pronunciation
in words like ‘schedule’.
________________________________________________________________________
Sentence
Samples
1.
All examples pertaining this Unit should preferably be related Science &
Technology.
All examples pertaining to this Unit should preferably be
related to science
and technology.
‘To’
should be added in two places. Letters ‘s’ and ‘t’ should be in the lower
case because here they are common nouns and do not refer to any specific
course or activity. The symbol ‘&’ should be avoided in continuous
writing as a substitute for ‘and’.
|
2. Today’s attack is yet another remainder to
the international community that it must
step up efforts to eradicate
terrorism wherever it exists.
Today’s attack is yet another reminder to the international
community that it must
step up its efforts to eliminate terrorism wherever
it exists.
‘reminder’, meaning
something that makes you remember, is to be used instead of ‘remainder’ which
means something that remains.
‘eradicate’ means ‘destroy something
completely’, like disease or racism.
‘eliminate’ means ‘remove or get rid of or kill an opponent’.
Terrorism cannot be destroyed but is an
enemy that should be killed or an evil that should be got rid of. So
‘eliminate’ should replace ‘eradicate’.
To make the grammar complete, ‘its’
should be added before ‘efforts’.
|
__________________________________________________________________
Paragraph Sample
A
We write letters for
various purposes. To friends and relatives for personal messages informally,
to officials, strangers, superiors for official messages formally.
Informality or formality depends on our relationship with those we write to.
When we write letters, we may be saying little or a lot. We may have to be
careful with our language or we may be free with choices of words and
sentence structures. The choice of words and structures depends on the level
of intimacy we have with whoever we are writing to. The relationship will
define what we will say, how much of it we’ll say and how we will say it. What’s
this relationship? The relationship may be informal, semi-formal or formal.
B
We
write letters to people: friends, relatives, officials, superiors, strangers.
To some of these, our messages include personal thoughts, opinions and even
gossip. To some others, our messages can only be impersonal. With some, we
are free with our language while with some others, we should not be free with
our language, that is, we need to be polite. In other words, what we say and
how we say it depend on to whom we are writing. This freedom or restriction
results from the relationship we have with people. This relationship is
generally known as informal, semi-formal and formal. We are informal or
semi-formal with friends and relatives whereas we are formal with officials,
superiors and strangers.
|
‘B’ is better than ‘A’, isn’t it? Unity and
coherence are better in the latter than in the former. ‘A’ begins with
‘purposes’ but nothing much is said about ‘purposes’. It goes on to talk about
people and the relationship between people and how that affects communication. ‘B’
begins with ‘we’, goes on to say what we write and how we write, and then
provides reason for the differences in our writing.
_______________________________________________________________________
Short essay
While
writing a critique on Amartya Sen’s ‘The Argumentative Indian’, I edited it at
least three times, here they are with the final draft:
Draft 1
The picture of the ‘argumentative Indian’ Amartya Sen presents
remains incomplete without the inclusion of the role of South India—the culture,
history and identity aspect of Dravidians has been ignored.
Seeing India through the eyes of great intellectuals or leaders is
not of course faulty but it is when not seen through the eyes of the common
Indian. For instance, the majority of Indians of varied religious faiths
living in harmony for centuries except occasionally has been integral part of
the argumentative Indian’s personality but has not at all been dealt with.
Instances there are several in Indian history that reveal the common man’s
role through his response to calls by leaders of the past and the present.
Most statements and hence paragraphs are too abstract and conceptual
in nature and content and thus they are hard to conceive and comprehend for a
lay person like me.
The English used is definitely not lay person-friendly, it rather
caters to the erudite and experts like him. His word choices make
comprehension for a lay person difficult. Ordinary lay persons will find it
extremely difficult to follow his thought process and analysis clothed in the
garb of others’.
Additions to
draft 1
This
book is definitely not for the common Indian who is certainly ignorant of
multiple references to scholars and experts whose mental and verbal exercises
become Sen’s. And as such he becomes a willing prisoner and thus makes
himself definitely incomprehensible.
Of
course, the choice of how he expresses himself is solely his; he could’ve,
however, been original, he could’ve spoken as Sen. But he has chosen to
entangle himself in the webs of others and has thus become a willing prisoner
and becomes delightfully incomprehensible. The ‘educated’ reader is made to
feel helpless and ‘uneducated’. The reading is more a burden than a pleasure
as the statements and assertions are far too abstract.
|
Draft 2
The
book essentially lacks three things. Sen’s perspective of the argumentative
tradition excludes the role of Southern India—of the Dravidians. More
importantly, more fundamentally, this book is so scholarly that it’s not for
the ordinary reader who has a fairly good mastery of English, who for lack of
a need hasn’t acquainted himself with the prodigious references. The demands
it makes on him are beyond his reach.
The English Sen employs caters rather to the erudite. Sen’s language
and thought are so heavily pregnant that they require verbal and mental
gymnastics. The quotes, which are one too many, mystify rather simplify or
clarify.
The
book leans and draws heavily on the sayings of leaders and intellectuals;
theories and concepts abound but absent are the common man’s involvement
reflecting these for instances there are several in history that reveal ready
responses to calls of contexts and leaders.
|
Draft 3
Some
thoughts on Amartya Sen’s ‘The Argumentative Indian’
After
reading the book, I realised I could appreciate someone’s work without fully
understanding it.
To
my mind, however, it lacks three things:
1.
Sen’s perspective of the argumentative tradition excludes (ignores?) the
Southern Indian
2.
More importantly, more fundamentally, the book is so scholarly that
The
quotes, which are one too many, mystify rather than simplify or clarify. Of
course, the choice of how Sen wishes to express himself is solely his; he
could’ve been himself but, he could’ve spoken as Sen. But he has chosen to
entangle himself in the webs of multitude of scholars and thinkers and has
thus become a willing prisoner and consequently becomes delightfully
incomprehensible. The ‘educated’ me feels glaringly helpless and
‘uneducated’. The reading is more a burden than a pleasure, the statements
and assertions being far too abstract.
3.
Most importantly, most fundamentally, the book leans and draws heavily on the
heavy-weights. Theories and concepts abound but visibly absent are the key
roles of the common man reflecting them through spontaneous actions; of
course history is replete with instances that reveal ready responses to
calls—cultural, social and political. Is it because the common man doesn’t
Note:
I wanted to give expression to Sen’s
daunting job, Himalayan task, and its completion. Hence the first
sentence in the first paragraph of
the final draft.
|
Final draft
Thoughts on Amartya
Sen’s ‘The Argumentative Indian’
The
book is monumental in its effort, terrific in its approach, stupendous in its
research, awesome in its content, complicated in its treatment, severely
complex in its exposition, forceful in its argument. After going through its
pages, I realized I could appreciate someone’s work without fully understanding
it.
To
my mind, however, it lacks three things:
1.
Sen’s perspective on the argumentative tradition excludes (ignores?) the
Southern Indian
contribution.
2.
More importantly, more fundamentally, the content and its presentation lack
simplicity and
directness. The book is so scholarly
that I get only a general drift of the ‘argument’ though
I must say I do possess a fairly good
mastery of the English language and can fairly
follow a serious analysis.
The demands the book makes on me are beyond
my reach. Sen’s lexis, syntax and content
are so heavily pregnant they require
constant verbal and mental gymnastics, which is tiring
(and can become a tiresome exercise with
time). The implications arising from the smooth
blend of his thoughts with those of
others’, which occurs at almost every statement, slip
through my fingers at every step I take.
Probably, he was so taken up with the ‘issues’ that
it may not have occurred to him that
readers like me, who are not as enlightened, may want
to read the book, understand its essence
with and enjoy it through all the attendant
paraphernalia.
The quotes, which are one too many I’m
afraid, mystify rather than simplify or clarify. Of
course, the choice of how Sen wishes to
express himself is solely his; he could’ve been
himself but, he could’ve spoken as Sen,
but. Yet he has chosen to engage himself in the
webs of multitude of scholars and thinkers
and has thus become a willing prisoner and
consequently becomes delightfully incomprehensible.
The ‘educated’ me feels glaringly
helpless, inadequate and ‘un-read’. The
reading is more a three hundred-and-odd-page
struggle than an enjoyment, the statements
and assertions being far too abstract.
So, the implications (understand and enjoy) inherent in Bibek Debroy’s wish—‘every
Indian should read this book’ (printed at
the back cover of the Penguin 2005 edition)—
which must also be Sen’s (why would he
otherwise have the content printed)—may not be
realised in its entirety.
3.
Most importantly, most fundamentally, the book leans and draws heavily on the
heavy-
weights. Theories and concepts abound but
visibly absent are the key roles of the
translator—the common man reflecting these
through spontaneity; of course history is
replete with instances that reveal ready
responses to calls—cultural, social and political. Is
it because the common man doesn’t traverse
the realm of ‘ideas’ (only through which Sen
has planned his grand tour)?
These observations of mine may not be, I
suspect, a lone cry in the wilderness. Or for that
matter they can be mine alone.
___________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment