Re. Shortening text

[geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA]

 Cathy Quinones asked for tips on how to shorten writing. My
 favorite: hire a good editor! (Yes, those of you who know
 me from copyediting-l will detect a conflict of interest
 <grin>)

 Here's a quick and incomplete list:
 1. Replace passive voice with active voice. (Almost always
 shortens text.) Similarly, cleanse your text of most forms
 of the verb "to be": "something was making me sick" thus
 becomes "something sickened me". (Watch out for all forms
 of "made", "got", "became", etc., as many of these indicate
 phrases that you can replace with a verb.)

 2. Kill off any adjectives and adverbs you encounter, then
 reread the sentence to see if it's still comprehensible; if
 not, replace the modifier with something helpfully
 specific.

 3. Use plural forms instead of dubious gender references or
 tortuous s/he inclusive forms. ("Readers prefer clarity
 because they..." rather than "The reader prefers clarity
 because he [he or she etc.]...")

 4. Use simple, common words rather than longer, more
 impressive words. This is a "short" list of suggestions,
 not a "length-minimized" or even a "concise" list. (The
 latter doesn't improve length enough to justify replacing
 it with short.) DON'T create acronyms just for the sake of
 shortening text; they usually confuse readers more than the
 length reduction benefits readers.

 5. Use ***appropriate*** jargon, particularly where you
 know that the jargon communicates as effectively as a
 longer explanatory phrase. "Limnology" is better than "the
 study of lakes etc." for the right audience. Appropriate
 jargon _does_ include universally known acronyms such as
 DNA, MS DOS, etc., but first you have to know what acronyms
 your audience already understands; it's the new ones that
 pose problems.

 6. Recognize phrases that you can replace with single
 words. "In order to" usually means "to", "on an objective
 basis" usually means "objectively", etc. (And then do the
 adjective/adverb test I recommended earlier to see if any
 modifiers that result from this process are redundant.)

 But beware the urge to chop more than you really need to. I
 once paraphrased a joke by Leo Rosten to demonstrate the
 problem with overshortening text. For those who are
 interested, here's the "doing this from memory" version:

 Consider the proposed sign "fresh fish for sale daily".
 "Daily" is obviously unnecessary because the fish could
 hardly be fresh otherwise. Similarly, "fresh" is redundant
 because who would sell (or buy) unfresh fish? The "for
 sale" note is also useless, since you wouldn't be
 displaying them if they weren't for sale. What's left,
 "fish", seems pretty terse and explicit, except that anyone
 walking past your shop will see (or smell) that you're
 selling fish. Voila! Careful editing has saved you the cost
 of a sign. [FeFeFeFeFe]

 --Geoff Hart    @8^{)}
 geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

 Disclaimer: If I didn't commit it in print in one of our
 reports, it don't represent FERIC's opinion.