TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Yup, Geoff is right. The error I am rallying against is the preposition at
the end of the sentence.
The modifier issue (without checking my grammar book since it is at work and
I am working from home) is when you end up with the question of who did
what. This rule I do agree with wholeheartedly.
So, I guess that raises the question of ending a sentence with a
preposition. You can see my specific examples in my previous post . . .
-----Original Message-----
From: Hart, Geoff [mailto:Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:58 AM
To: Techwr-L (E-mail); 'Ellen Kelly'
Subject: Dangling modifiers?
Ellen Kelly wonders: <<What's the current thought on dangling modifers?>>
The same as it's always been: rewrite to avoid them. The problem with
danglers (including participles) is that they leave the meaning unclear at
best, and misleading at worst, and that's why they're wrong. That's also why
there's a rule against them in grammar: because they simply don't
communicate well.
<<Every time our VP edits my docs (we are a small company, I take whatever
edits I can get!) he marks up dangling modifiers.>>
>From the example you gave later in your note ("the documentation that I have
have added dangling modifers to"), this isn't actually a case of a dangling
modifier. I'll preface this by noting that my grammar module is mostly
off-line due to a cold, but it seems that what you're actually referring to
is a terminal "function word" (often a preposition; here, "to") rather than
an actual dangler.
That's a whole different question. Although by definition, a preposition
must come before (pre), modern usage has accepted such structures with nary
a twitch for many, many years--provided that the meaning remains clear and
that the overall sentence remains grammatical. In longer sentences, the
terminal preposition may grow so far from the clause that depends on it that
it becomes difficult to figure out its purpose. Thus, in many cases, the
sentence merits a rewrite. The standard rewrite in your case is "to which I
have added", and that's clearer and easier to parse.
--Geoff Hart, FERIC, Pointe-Claire, Quebec
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
"User's advocate" online monthly at
www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/usersadvocate.html
"When ideas fail, words come in very handy."--Goethe
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now's a great time to buy RoboHelp! You'll get SnagIt screen capture
software and a $200 onsite training voucher FREE when you buy RoboHelp
Office or RoboHelp Enterprise. Hurry, this offer expires February 28, 2002. www.ehelp.com/techwr
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
