A Word, Please: More tips on how to write bullet-proof prose

Last week, we looked at words and phrases that, while fine in general usage, are considered no-nos in professional editing. But there are more — lots more — than we could fit into a single column. So here are more terms that, though fine in casual usage, you might want to skip if you’re writing for publication.

You probably don’t need to sweat “may” vs. “might” in casual communication. The dictionary will sometimes let you use these words interchangeably.

However, the Chicago Manual of Style strongly suggests that you keep these two auxiliary verbs in their separate corners. “‘May’ expresses what is possible, is factual or could be factual,” the guide states. “‘Might’ suggests something that is uncertain, hypothetical or contrary to fact.”

Again, that’s a style rule, not a grammar rule. But it’s a good one to know even if you don’t plan to follow it.

In the reigning editing styles, it’s an error to use “which” to introduce restrictive clauses — clauses that narrow down or specify the subject, as in “The dog that I want has a puffy tail.” In the real world, you would be well within the rules of good grammar if you changed “that” to “which.” But in AP and Chicago editing styles, that’s a mistake.

“Different than” is a term I often change. People believe that this phrase calls for the preposition “from” in place of “than” — a word primarily considered a conjunction. Prepositions can introduce nouns as in “different from Joe,” “different from yesterday” and “different from the red one.”

A subordinating conjunction like “than” usually introduces a whole clause, complete with verb, as we see in “He runs faster than you do.” So anyone who thinks of “than” as exclusively a conjunction would have a problem with it introducing a noun like Joe. But “than” is not exclusively a conjunction. It’s also a preposition, so you can use it after “different” if you really want to. That’s a bit sloppy for us copy editors. So I always change “different than” to “different from.”

“Comprised of” is bad news in the editing world. Language observers who advocate drawing a distinction between “compose” and “comprise” agree that there is no “comprised of.” Instead, comprise’s main definition is to make up, the way plural things make up a singular one: Fifty states comprise our nation. A cello player, a flautist and a drummer comprise the trio.

Conversely, the trio is composed of those players. The nation is composed of the 50 states. If you think of these words as being practically opposites, it will keep you out of trouble. You’ll also see that “comprise” is nowhere near as useful as “compose.”

The term “beg the question” arose from the field of logic. It can refer to any of several types of fallacious reasoning. However, none of them is the equivalent of “raise the question.” Experts debate whether you can use “beg the question” to mean “raise the question,” for example by saying, “Volatility in the stock market begs the question: Are we in another recession?” But in editing, there’s no debate. Using “beg the question” to mean “raise the question” is bad form.

And speaking of bad form, if you ever see “utilize” in a news article, you’ll know the copy editor fell asleep on the job. This stuffy alternative to “use” is fine if you think your reader will be impressed by the extra syllables. But most corners of the publishing world prefer accessible, casual language. This idea also extends to “approximately.” The word “about” is usually preferred.

You can defy all these bits of advice and still turn out bullet-proof prose. It just won’t seem like a professional editor worked on it.

--

JUNE CASAGRANDE is the author of “The Best Punctuation Book, Period.” She can be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.