Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 January 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 15

It would be remiss of me

Hello. Is the phrase "It would be remiss of me" considered good formal English? I know it is better to say "I would be remiss to..." but the parallel construction I am working with right now would make that very awkward. Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds OK to me, but not something used in general conversation, more likely to be used in a formal situation in something like an acceptance speech, as in "it would be remiss of me not to mention all the hard work of ...". Mikenorton (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, "It would be remiss of me" is the usual phrase in my experience. You say it's better to say "I would be remiss", but I can't say I've ever heard or seen that form of words. Is is standard where you are? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, "remiss" with a verb is always construed with the gerund (eg "remiss in paying") not the infinitive *"remiss to pay", (except, oddly, in the negative: "remiss not to pay"). So the examples for "remiss" in the OED have five examples of "remiss in ...ing", and one in "remiss ... not to have offered", but not a single example of "remiss to ...". So "I would be remiss in ...ing" would be acceptable. Like Jack, I judge that "It would be remiss of me" is more common; but Google ngrams doesn't agree with me, and shows "I/we would be remiss" increasing in both US and UK English significantly since 1940, while "It would be remiss of me/us" flatlines. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A few lines in English, describing an old man. Help me improve my english and my vocabulary ?

I've taken quite some time to write what I now have, but there are a few areas in it that I feel could do with a bit of improving or even be re-written completely. If you help me improve any areas that you might think weak or substitute words in there with better ones where and if it is needed, it will help me not only here and now, but it will also help me in the future as it will contribute to improve my understanding of the english language which I'm trying to improve, even though I think my english already is decent. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here it goes:

Before them stood an old, hooded man with a strange-looking staff and a long white beard reaching almost down to his belly. He were dressed in old purple robes which may once have looked exquisitely grand and majestic, having showed him as a man of importance, but now it looked worn and its once rich color had long since faded from years and lengthy use. No doubt these robes had been a constant companion of his on many a journey. Although the long white beard had easily revealed him as an aged man it was first when he removed his large hood that one could actually see his face; he looked a man just past sixty, with a bald head and deep lines running across the forehead and around his blue eyes. He greeted them with a simple “hello”. His voice was deep and husky like was typical of an old man, but it did not sound frail and he did not otherwise seem like a typical sixty-year old. He stood upright like a young man, healthy and strong, and he did not lean on his staff as much as he carried it. Also, there was something about his eyes that made him look more… alive than one might have expected, like as if he had the eyes of a younger man. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I've highlighted the words/areas that I'm most displeased about in "fat writing" and which I think is in the most need of improving. I'm otherwise generally quite pleased with what I have managed, but I'm sure there's always room for improvement.

The Highlighted areas:

- I'm unsure whether its right to use both deep and husky to describe the one and same voice as these two words have very similar meaning.

- As for the other two areas I have highlighted I kind of lack the words to describe what I want... I think I manage to say what I want to say, but I feel that I say it in clumsy ways due to lacking the right words. So I guess I'm looking spesifically for ways to improve these two sentences and my english skills.

88.90.31.111 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but I have a few things to point out: it should be "he was dressed", not "he were dressed". Also, you slip into the singular later on, when you should still be using the plural: it should be "now they looked worn and their once rich color..." Also, at the end, you shouldn't use both "like" and "as if" (I would only use "as if"). The highlighted parts seem fine, especially the one with the staff sounds Dickensian to me. This was just after a quick glance, and I've said nothing about the style of writing - I kept to pointing out some obvious errors. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My first thought is that you are apparently describing a man of considerable chronological years, in spite of his youthful bearing, and then you claim he is 60 years old. I hate to disillusion you, but most 60-year-olds (male and female, and older) are still working and running busy, active lives. Some famous ones are, for example: Donald Trump (65), Tina Turner (72), Pierce Brosnan (59), Paul McCartney (turns 70 this year), Mick Jagger (68) and Mitt Romney (64). I think you need to advance the chronological age by at least 20 years. Bielle (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Deep and husky" isn't redundant - "husky", when applied to a voice, means "hoarse and rough-sounding". Although most husky voices are deep, they're different enough that it's not so much redundancy as repetition for emphasis. I like the staff description, though I would tighten it up by using parallelism: "and he did not lean on his staff as much as carry it." The ellipses on the last is the big issue - drop it. I get you're trying to show uncertainty, but forcing pauses into prose is an effect that's easily overdone. There's probably also a way to tighten things up. Perhaps something like: "Also, there was something about his eyes that made him look younger than his six eight decades." (I agree that you need to make him older), although I'd recommend getting rid of the "also" and finding a different way to make the transition. Additionally, I find your second ("He were was dressed ...") and fourth ("Although the long ...") sentences too long and confusing - you're trying to force too many ideas into one sentence, and it's coming out garbled (I suffer from this affliction, too). Minor points: I'd go with either "years of lengthy use" or "time and lengthy use". You should also mind comma usage - you're missing one after "as an aged man", which makes the fourth sentence even more awkward. -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for feedback so far. I'm a bit prone to fall into the trap of changing to singular from plural in some cases. Probably because of the way my own language works, which differs a little bit in that regard from english.

As for me claiming 60 years to be old, you are right of course, and it is my bad to forget to mention that this old man is a man of the old days - from the middle ages you might say. People had shorter lives back then, and 60 years would be counted as old. But you make a fair point, seeing as i forgot to mention this. I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.31.111 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC) "it was first when he removed..." — I think you mean "it was only". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks goes also to the one who gave the last of three replies so far. You seem to have a bit of knowledge about this and you explain very well the reasons for your views. Your feedbacks are strict :P but that is good, I need that. You make some good points and I will try to take lesson from them. 88.90.31.111 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would rewrite it like this:

Before them wearing a hood stood an old man, a long white beard covering his chest. In his hand he bore a staff of gnarled wood, sinewy and two-toned. The purple robes he wore may have once proclaimed his prominence. They may have accompanied him on important journeys. But now they were faded from use. A bald head was revealed when he removed his hood. Deep lines traversed his forehead. His eyes were blue. His greeting was simple. His voice issued forth voice deep and throaty without a trace of frailty. He carried his own staff—his stature upright and steady. His eyes were unexpectedly youthful.

I've taken the liberty of leaving a lot out, and rearranging some of the ideas, and just using expressions that I like. I've elaborated on the man's staff—if it was "strange-looking" I wanted to describe it. You may want to assign different qualities to it. Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Your English is quite good, though a little shaky, but your quality of expression shows natural ability, so don't worry there. Still, the passage needs pruning, then having been pruned, it needs regrowth - you need to lengthen some bits, though not sure quite what. Here is my liberal version, showing at least where you should be thinking of cutting and adding. This definitely is not assumed to be particularly good, but it shows the sort of thing you need:

Before them stood an old, hooded man with a strange-looking staff and a long white beard reaching almost down to his belly. He was dressed in old purple robes which might once have looked grand and majestic, showing him as a man of importance, but now they looked careworn and faded. No doubt these robes had been with him on many a journey, no doubt they had seen toil and danger, sorrow and trouble, strife and repose. Although the long white beard had revealed him to be an aged man, it was only when he cast back his large hood that one could actually see his face; he looked just past eighty, with a bald head and deep lines running across the forehead, and sweeping around his sovereign blue eyes. He greeted them with a simple “Hello”. His voice was deep and husky, in keeping with his advanced years, but it did not sound frail, nor did he otherwise seem like a veteran of so many seasons. He stood upright like a young man, healthy and strong, and he did not lean on his staff as much carry it. And there was something about those eyes that made him look more alive, as if they were the eyes of a much younger man.

Not at all definitive, but I do feel that "No doubt these robes had been with him on many a journey" falls slightly flat on its own - I'm sure your creative talent can improve quite a lot on this. Bus stop's version with "accompanied" might be an improvement. I was also going to write: "And there was something about those eyes that made him look more - what was it? - alive - as if they were the eyes of a much younger man." - but I took 71's advice on not forcing the pause. As for general help, on improving your English, this is how to go about it - submit your work for feedback somewhere. IBE (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What colour is "sovereign blue"? Bielle (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What colour is royal blue? I really don't know, I just thought it fitted. IBE (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Royal blue is a known colour; when you use the two words together, I (and others) know more or less exactly what you mean. I don't know a colour named "sovereign blue". I don't think it is an expression in English, and thus it is meaningless -to me, at any rate. Bielle (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the issues here is the capability to lose the original flow and individuality of the writer. When copy-editing something we have to take care with is to leave as much of the original writer and their style as we possibly can. There are some areas where obvious mistakes are made, some where grammar can be improved, and some where prose can be improved. I would not say that rearranging things is a good course of action though. The originality has to be preserved as much as possible to avoid rewriting it in ones own style. I would have copy-edited and rewritten some parts as:

Before them stood an old, hooded man holding a strange-looking staff, his long white beard reaching almost down to his belly. He was dressed in ancient purple robes which may at one time have looked exquisitely grand and majestic, showing him as a man of importance, but now looking worn and faded, their once rich color long since darkened by the years of lengthy use, a constant companion on many of his journeys.
Although the long white beard had revealed him as an aged man, it wasn't until he removed his large hood that one could actually see his face; he looked like a man just past sixty, with a bald head and deep lines running across his forehead and around his (piercing/soulful/timeless/knowing/etc.) blue eyes.
He greeted them with a simple "Hello", his voice deep and husky, most unlike that of the typically frail voice of an old man - nor did he seem much like a typical sixty-year old as he stood upright, healthy and strong, carrying the staff rather than leaning on it for support. Similarly, there was something about his eyes that made him look more alive than one might have expected, as if he had the (keen/bright/etc.) eyes of a younger man. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the above comment about preserving the original author's style. I sometimes get the urge to change wording for no good reason other than suiting my style. The real issue is clarity: does it say what it means? But there's more than one way to skin a cat.

• "He stood upright like a young man, healthy and strong, and he did not lean on his staff as much [as] carry it." (from IBE) I think that does a great job at keeping the spirit of the original while sharpening the lean–carry distinction, and it took fewer words to express it. However, sometimes you have to break the flow with dashes and semicolons! "He stood upright like a young man, healthy and strong; he did not lean on his staff—he carried it."
• Maybe "sixty-year old [man]" → "sixty-year-old [man]" (extra hyphen)?
• Invaluable: Tony1/How to improve your writing

Regards. Braincricket (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the only person who can say if any given version retains the "spirit of the original" is the person who presented the original version. We are not "copy-editing something". The original poster articulated a request. They didn't mention "copy-editing". Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read their request fully "If you help me improve any areas that you might think weak or substitute words in there with better ones where and if it is needed ..." Chaosdruid (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh. Lets not argue over who is allowed to identify the spirit of a text and who isn't. The original poster was looking for ideas on trimming "fat writing" and general improvement. Copy editing is certainly a way to do that. Completely re-writing everything is also a way. I was talking about improving clarity with minimal change. Sometimes all it takes is the removal of a single word. Braincricket (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "fat writing" is a reference to that which is in bold text, as in "3 apostrophes will bold the text." Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Ya you're right about about that one. My points are still valid, though. Watch: I'll strike it out. :-) Braincricket (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No need for anyone to disagree or worry about me copying directly from what you say. All advise given here have proven good advise, even the ones I don't use. It still helps to see how other people would express the same thing that I am trying to express. It helps me to see how things can be done, not necessarily how it must be done. As one of you said before, it's usually more than one way to do/achieve something. It is important that I keep the orignality of what I first wrote, I agree about that, because I'm the one doing it.

I learned from much of what you said, not only in regard to this particular writing about the old man, but in general as well. Some of the mistakes you have pointed out are obvious ones which I already knew deep down, but I needed someone to highlight them for me before I could see them. Besides, I was also out to improve my vocabulary a little, which I did.

I might paste my finished version here soon, IF I finish it relatively soon. I haven't really decided yet the appearance of the staff (except that it's a wizard's staff with a gem placed on the tip) or how to make the transition at the end to allow myself to continue writing from here. So there's also chance I'll end up writing at another front for a while :P Tnx again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.31.111 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________

This is what I have decided to go with, if of any interest:

____________

Before them stood an old, hooded man with a strange-looking staff of gnarled wood and a long white beard reaching down to just below his chest. He was dressed in old purple robes which may once have looked exquisite, having showed him as a man of importance, but now they looked worn and their once rich color had long since faded from years of lengthy use. No doubt these robes had accompanied him on many a journey. Although the long white beard had easily revealed him as an aged man, it was only when he removed his large hood that one could actually see his face. He looked a man just past sixty, with a bald head and deep lines running across the forehead and around his knowing blue eyes. He greeted them with a simple “hello.” His voice was deep and husky, in keeping with his advanced years, but it lacked the frailty that was typical in an old man’s voice, and he didn’t otherwise seem like a typical sixty-year old either. He stood upright like a young man, healthy, lean and strong, and Galverey took notice that he did not lean on his staff as much as carry it. There was something about his eyes as well that made him look more alive than Galverey might have expected from a man his age, as if he had the eyes of a younger man. There was little doubt that this had to be the wizard from Nalanther that the prior had spoken of.

____________

I liked the word "gnarled", and it described well what I was aiming for so I had to put that in. As for more details on the staff, it will be described very soon, after or in tandem with the dialogue that is about to start off between the old wizard and the named man (main character). As for someone saying that one or two of my sentences were too long and confusing, I have split sentence 4 into what is now sentence 4 and 5. I see it works better, and usually I do aim to avoid making too long sentences. I will keep doing that. I also removed two adjectives (Grand and majestic) from sentence 2 to make it less... confusing as u said. I think this also works better. Other than that I feel some minor changes done to the last half improved things a great deal. "In keeping with his advanced years", I liked that one.

There's two minor things: in the sentence second to last I use the word "alive", but I also considered "lively". I didn't quite manage to decide which one worked best but I felt I had to go with "alive".

Also, "...deep lines running across the forehead and around his knowing blue eyes." here I considered the possibility of instead saying "...deep lines running across the forehead and around a pair of knowing blue eyes."

Anyway, I certainly found these lines challenging tnx for replies.

88.90.31.111 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• I really enjoyed the concrete details you added into the passage (the staff of "gnarled" wood, the old man being healthy, "lean", and strong)
• An example of an unnecessary/redundant bit you might delete. Not doing anything for ya! ;)

His voice was deep and husky, in keeping with his advanced years, but it lacked the frailty that was typical in an old man’s voice, and he didn’t otherwise seem like a typical sixty-year old either. He stood upright like a young man, healthy, lean and strong, and Galverey took notice that he did not lean on his staff as much as carry it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedonistbot4000 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)