What is, is

Many of you recognize that you have a particular writing style. You may tend to write short sentences, use flowery language, or insert a lot of parentheticals (like me). But, have you ever considered that companies have styles? Whether intentionally or not, they do!

Organizational styles develop because people in organizations repurpose language and text that already exists, and people tend to write in styles similar to the style of what they read.

At JA, we have developed a worrisome habit that stems from a misapplication of a syntactic style called E-prime, which seeks to eliminate all forms of the verb “to be.” At its best, E-prime can force writers to think differently and use more creative and vivid verbs (e.g., “The project enhanced transportation options for the community” rather than “The project was a transportation expansion project.”). At its worst, E-prime can be inaccurate, grammatically incorrect, or just plain awkward.

Consider this frequent JA usage:

“The project represents the longest tunnel drive in history.”

This is an inaccurate sentence and an incorrect use of the verb “represent.” The project did not “represent” the longest tunnel drive in history; it simply was the longest. One of the philosophical bases of E-prime is that reality is perceived, not actual. Regardless of one’s opinion on that matter, the implication has no place in our work. We deal in facts, and if it was the longest tunnel drive, it was. 

Consider another example:

“The project consists of 1,560 feet of driven tunnel.” 

It is incorrect to say that one thing consists of another; the definition of “consists” that applies in this case is of multiple parts combining to make up a single new whole, like so:

“The project consists of 1,560 feet of driven tunnel, four shafts, and a new control building.”

Our final example is one that is not incorrect, but is awkward:

“The tunnels have not had an inspection since 1955.”

This sentence resulted from the desire to avoid saying “The tunnels have not been inspected since 1955.” The definition of “had” that applies in this case is “to get” — but we wouldn’t say “The tunnels have not gotten an inspection since 1955” would we? “Have not had” is only slightly less inelegant.

The bottom line? Use E-prime to liven up your language, but when something is, just say so.

Filed under: Lisa's Pet Peeves, Verbs, Word Choice, Writing

Using Terminology and Jargon Effectively

In our industry, it’s inevitable that we will use some terminology and jargon. As authors, you are addressing people who generally understand many of the technical concepts that you are writing about. It makes sense to use standard terminology.

However, it’s very important to take a few simple steps to ensure that your use of terminology and jargon is effective.

1. Define your terms. If you’re using a term in a limited or unusual way, or if you aren’t certain that all of your audience will know exactly what the term means, offer a short definition within the text the first time the term appears.

2. Use the exact same term each time you use it or, if you shorten the term, be certain that the shortened term is very like the full term. For example, if you refer to a laser survey device, you could shorten it to laser device or laser survey, but you should not also refer to it as a laser guidance system.

3. Don’t use terms that mean different things interchangeably. We often make this mistake when dealing with a broad category and a more discrete category. For example, if you are writing about both a two-pass bolted and gasketed lining and a two-pass expandable segment lining, you will need to distinguish between the type of lining each time you mention the lining, as two-pass alone is not specific enough.

Filed under: Word Choice, Writing in Engineering

Pet Peeve

I try to avoid using the writing tips as a way to put an end to things that personally annoy me, but today I can’t resist!

There is almost never a reason to use the word upon as a substitute for on. We aren’t writing poetry, and therefore we aren’t concerned about rhythm and meter, so why would we use this unnecessary and pompous-sounding substitute?! Let’s not.

Filed under: Lisa's Pet Peeves, Word Choice

Persons vs. People

Please reserve the front seats for the elderly and persons with disabilities.

The use of persons often sounds awkward, but it (not people) is the plural of person. As a general rule, when the number of individuals can be (easily) counted, persons is correct. When referring to a large group or crowd, people is correct.

Of course, this distinction is rarely observed in modern English; we generally use people as the plural of person. But, in formal writing, it is desirable to be aware of what is most correct.

Filed under: Word Choice

And/Or

It’s tempting to overuse and/or. In his book Lapsing Into a Comma, Bill Walsh offers this handy explanation:

“… consider whether or alone might mean the same thing. If you’re told Anyone who has seen or heard from this dangerous individual should contact the FBI, but you’ve both seen and heard from that person, does that mean you shouldn’t call the FBI?”  (p. 101)

Filed under: Punctuation, Word Choice

The Gender Thing

Those of you who have worked with me know that I am fairly picky about avoiding the use of the masculine pronoun as a generic for all people, regardless of their gender.

I am willing to lose the battle in specs that refer to the contractor as “he.” But, beyond that, please do not use masculine pronouns generically. The best way to avoid this is to change the sentence to the plural so that you can use plural pronouns that are gender neutral.

Bad:    The engineer can use his experience to make this decision.

Not bad:   Engineers can use their experience to make this decision.

If it’s not possible to rewrite the sentence, I will use the s/he option or alternate between the masculine and feminine pronouns. Many people find this awkward, but – again – I prefer it to the alternative of using only the masculine pronoun.

Also be mindful of sneakily gender-exclusive words like man-placed fill, manhole, etc. (e.g., use artificial fill and utility hole). This website offers a table of inclusive replacements for exclusive words.

Filed under: Word Choice

What's Wrong with "About"?

I’ve been seeing some interesting avoidances of the word about lately:

With some 25 years spent on the project, the team was more experienced than any other.

The tunnel will be on the order of 1,000 feet long.

What’s wrong with about for these sentences? Nothing. If you know the exact value, use that. If not, use about or approximately.

With about 25 years on the project, the team was more experienced than any other.

The tunnel will be 1,025 feet long.

Filed under: Lisa's Pet Peeves, Word Choice

Colts Versus Bears

This title is an acceptable use of the word “versus.” (Yes, I had to look up the team names.)

The following usage is NOT acceptable:

This paper describes and compares problematic geotechnical, design and construction management approaches versus an actual approach that leads to successful completion of microtunneling installation and shaft construction in problem soils, private properties prone to damages and under very difficult traffic related constraints.

There seems to be a tendency to use the word versus anytime we are comparing two things. The problem is that it is an awkward word to write with, and easy to misuse (see the use of both compare and versus in the above paragraph). Another problem with versus is that it isn’t very precise. It can simply mean comparison, or it can mean “in contrast to,” or “against” (as in a game or a conflict).

Consider this revision of the paragraph above:

This paper contrasts the problematic nature of several geotechnical, design, and construction management approaches with a new approach that facilitates successful microtunneling and shaft construction in difficult conditions (e.g., in problem soils, near private properties prone to damage, and in constrained traffic conditions).

Filed under: Word Choice

If You Memorize One Thing

Make it this:

When you are giving a range, between goes with and, and from goes with to. 

BAD: The results were between 3,000 to 14,000.

GOOD: The results were between 3,000 and 14,000.

GOOD: The results ranged from 3,000 to 14,000.

This is a frequent mistake and one that is very easy to correct.

Filed under: Numbers, Word Choice

Sewerage and Sewage

Sewerage: The system that conveys sewage.

Sewage: “The waste matter that passes through sewers” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary)

Filed under: Frequently Confused Words, Word Choice