| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 25 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 27 > |
| 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. |
August 26 Information
I don't know where to post this question, either here or on Humanities (literature). Anyway, I would like to write essays with style. When I read my friend's composition, I noticed all of his paragraphs started with participial phrases. He called this creative writing. In one of his other essays, all the first words in his paragraphs, if combined together, read "WE SHOULD NOT CHEAT," which is exactly the very title of his essay and that is also the last sentence of his essay. I wonder if you can refer to me some links on "styles" of sentences and paragraphs.. I know there are multifarious styles on writing. My friend failed to teach me about this. Thank you for any help you would extend. God bless you. Carlrichard 02:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Constrained writing, perhaps? - Elmer Clark 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that's what the original poster means. It seems that he just wants to learn how to write (and do it with style). It's a mere desultory event that his friend used constrained writing. A.Z. 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- The booklet The Elements of Style may contain some advice or guidance that is useful. The essay How to write with style by Kurt Vonnegut is free and on-line. [1] -- Lambiam 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sitting at my keyboard I'm not sure that starting all your paragraphs with participial phrases is a good idea. Having it with every paragraph would be gimmicky. In your second example (having the first words spell out a secret message) you've described a simple acrostic. This is also not a technique a serious writer would use. -- JayHenry 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Poor George Herbert; condemned as an amateur. And Edgar Allen Poe fails the serious writer test too :( Splitting a message in the fashion described can be an effective technique is employed well, but it can also come across as gimmicky or cheap if done poorly. Alternatively, it can be entertaining for the author to play such games and see if they can do so without affecting the quality or sense of the work. Skittle 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
When describing something as being completely free of animal products, which one of these is correct?
- Animal-product-free
- Animal product-free
- Animal product free
Thanks! Aaadddaaammm 07:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think different style guides offer different advice on this problem. The
Chicago Manual of Style recommends "animal product–free", with an
en dash rather than a
hyphen, for cases like this. —
Angr/
talk 07:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Chicago Manual of Style sounds good enough for me! Thanks for the quick (10 minutes!) reply! Aaadddaaammm 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a strange use of the en-dash. I would go with the third example, definitely not the second. The meaning is clear enough without the hyphens. Personally, I would prefer to recast and put something like "contains no animal products" or simply "suitable for vegetarians", which now seems to be the norm in the UK.-- Shantavira| feed me 09:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I had option 2 first, then changed it to option 1 then back to option 2 at Angr's advice. Thanks for your input, too, Shantavira - but I don't know if "Much work has been invested in finding methods suitable for vegetarians to prevent stem cells differentiating spontaneously" really has the right ring to it... :P But seriously, does anyone else want to cast a vote? It's for a uni essay in NZ, if that sways anyone's opinion. Aaadddaaammm 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Surely 'free of animal products' 'that do not use animal products' would be simpler and clearer, without the agonising? Skittle 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- For formal writing, I'd follow the relevant manual of style for whatever you're writing. For informal writing, I would use the completely-dashed-up-version since I think it's clearer. -- Sean 12:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If feasible, you might consider using another phrasing, as you'll never please everyone with this one. My own opinion is that it has to be "animal-product-free" -- Anon, August 26, 15:52 (UTC).
It's kind of strange, because my first instinct is to group the compound noun 'animal-product' first and then describe it with free. This results in 'animal-product free'. On the other hand, if I were writing, I would be more inclined to leave out the hyphens/dashes altogether, or use the 'free of animal products' version. The lengthier version would be more appropriate for anything but product labelling or advertising.
Do you think the work 'consultant' sounds phony What other words do you suggest in this field of people who are selling some form of know how. E.g. analyst, ...
- Advisor? Skarioffszky 12:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- It may depend on where you're coming from, but to me adviser as an occupational description sounds fishy, while consultant sounds just fine. -- Lambiam 16:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Merriam-Webster says that the word
consultant has been in the
English language since
1697. By the way, know how strikes my ears as quaint and antiquated. I prefer knowledge. --
Nricardo 18:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Knowledge and know-how, knowhow, know how have different meanings. I'm trying to think to myself how they differ, but the best I can come up with, is that knowledge means that you know what the components of a radio are, but know-how means that you can put one together. It's more manual than mental. Corvus cornix 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say whether it sounds phony depends on what goes with the word. "Management consultant" sounds fine, but "automotive surfacic detergent consultant" (some guy who works in a car wash) sounds as phony as it is. StuRat 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
When I worked in the financial district of NYC, "consultant" was the term used for those who were not paid directly by the employer, but paid by an agency used by the employer. It was very confusing, because previously a "consultant" was an independent who was paid very big bucks. 69.201.141.45 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- There are lots of examples of this. Last night I saw a TV ad for a hairdressing salon in a small town, whose staff glory in titles such as "Senior Salon Executive", "Salon Executive", or "Salon Associate". -- JackofOz 01:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, an episode of Family Ties had Alex promoted at his job at Walmart (or whatever fictional chain name they used) to Junior Vice President in charge of Cat Toys. :-) StuRat 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Consultant is a word that has plenty of "phony" connotation; however, in any business environment it's still widely used. You could even use it in more informal settings, like flyering as a "organizational consultant" or, perhaps, "lifestyle consultant" without being too out of the norm. (Though I think the word "coach" is becoming more popular in those contexts.) I think it all depends on context. In very informal settings, you might bill yourself as a "professinal geek" or "nerd" even, these days. — gogobera ( talk) 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, nothing has become as debased as "analyst", which currently means somebody with a bachelor's who can work Powerpoint fairly well. If he/she can also work Excel, they're a senior analyst. Gzuckier 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're only allowed to be a coach if you're "mathematically challenged" (only people who " rode the short bus" can ask others to give 110%, 120%, or more). StuRat 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)