للصحفين و المحررين و الكتاب بالانجليزية

Quote: ####phor Trouble By Philip B. Corbett After Deadline examines questions of grammar, usage and style encountered by writers and editors of The Times. It is adapted from a weekly newsroom critique overseen by Philip B. Corbett, the deputy news editor who is also in charge of The Times’s style manual. The goal is not to chastise, but to point out recurring problems and suggest solutions. Since many writers wrestle with similar troubles, we think these observations might interest general readers, too. Nip That ####phor in Its Tracks My colleague Adam Bryant, an editor in Business, notes that business writers tend to reach for ####phors to try to make complicated aspects of finance and economic policy more accessible. It’s the right instinct, but as Adam says, problems can arise when we mix and match ####phors in a single sentence or paragraph. In recent weeks, we have printed sentences about … … a stew of programs, some with warts and all. … assets that are hanging over a bank and need to be purged. … acquisitions that are absorbed and then molded into a giant. … unplugging a stoppage by shoring up something. You get the idea. The best defense, of course, is to picture the ####phors in your mind’s eye, and if they don’t quite look right, think again. Best to keep it simple, with bonus points for originality, like a line that Jack Healy tossed off last month about the decline in home prices, referring to developers who rushed to lay out quilts of new subdivisions. Carter Dougherty also had a vivid image in his piece last month about Adolf Merckle’s suicide: Last fall, Mr. Merckle lost hundreds of millions of euros when he was caught in a brief but ferocious speculative riptide. Untangling Sentences Another colleague in Business, Cass Peterson, pointed out a construction that often tangles our sentences. Intent on adding more information or background, we frequently resort to cumbersome phrases beginning with “with,” and usually including a participle phrase or the #####alent. The construction isn’t wrong, but it’s often a signal that the sentence is becoming overly complex. Consider these examples, as originally filed: Recent statistics showed bankruptcies in Japan jumped 24 percent in December from a year earlier, with 33 listed firms among the victims last year — the highest tally in at least 60 years. A simpler and clearer approach is to use two sentence: “Recent statistics showed bankruptcies in Japan jumped 24 percent in December from a year earlier. Last year, 33 listed firms were among the victims — the highest tally in at least 60 years.” ••• Over the last few years, the playing field has changed, with Sony now no longer competing solely against traditional Japanese electronics companies, but also against South Korean manufacturers like Samsung and LG Electronics, which have expanded their product portfolios. The main clause here is just a few words; we stuffed the bulk of the information into the tacked-on “with” construction. Again, splitting the sentence gives the reader a chance to digest the information at a steady pace: “Over the last few years, the playing field has changed. Sony no longer competes solely against traditional Japanese electronics companies, but also against South Korean manufacturers like Samsung and LP Electronics, which have expanded their product portfolios.” ••• Thomas O. Staggs, Disney’s chief financial officer, said spending at Disney World and Disneyland in the last part of 2008 was flat, with spending at the company’s resort hotels up modestly. Here, one sentence might handle all the information, but it would probably be easier to read with two parallel clauses: “Thomas O. Staggs, Disney’s chief financial officer, said that spending at Disney World and Disneyland in the last part of 2008 was flat, and that spending at the company’s resort hotels was up modestly.” Keeping Comparisons Straight A number of readers have asked about how we handle comparisons. Here’s a typical comment from a few weeks ago: The Times is the only place where I see this done: When comparing earlier and later values, you place the later value first, for example: “His pay was raised to $30 per hour from $20 per hour.” I always have to re-read these sentences to figure out what you meant. You have broken no rule of grammar. But common sense would tell you to put the first thing, well, first. That is also the way people talk. We do often use constructions like this one. As our stylebook explains, the idea is to avoid having the reader misread the pair of figures — even momentarily — as a range instead of a comparison. Consider this example: Profit margins in the industry rose from 10 percent to 12 percent last year. Do we mean profits had been 10 percent, and last year they went up to 12 percent? Or do we mean that profits rose at various companies by anywhere from 10 percent to 12 percent? It’s difficult to be sure in this sentence. But if we said Profit margins in the industry rose to 12 percent last year, from 10 percent, it’s clear that we’re comparing the two figures. (To convey a range, we should be more explicit, and use “by”; for example, Profit margins in the industry rose by anywhere from 10 percent to 12 percent.) Of course, editors can be creatures of habit, and we may tend to use this construction even when there is no possibility of confusion. Take this example: The legal drinking age has been raised from 18 to 21. There’s no chance of ambiguity, so there’s no real need to reverse the numbers. The Times’s Stylebook The stylebook to which I often refer — The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage — is available to the public in print. In the newsroom, we use an online version that is regularly updated. Unfortunately, that version is not accessible to readers, although we are considering the possibility of making it available through nytimes.com.