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.
Nancy asks:
>
[...]
> Having provided that context, I ask you this: if you had to incorporate
the following
> sentence as is (and not break it into two sentences, or a bulleted list,
or anything
> else that a reasonably talented tech writer would immediately do), which
version
> would you use? And, please tell me if you would add or remove any
punctuation:
>
> ---The bank should have clear standards for the collection and
modification of all
> elements, and should combine these elements in a manner that most
effectively
> enables it to quantify its exposure to operational risk.
>
> ---The bank should have clear standards for the collection and
modification of all
> elements, and combine these elements in a manner that most effectively
enables
> it to quantify its exposure to operational risk.
I would break it into two sentences, but you've proscribed that for unknown
reasons. It actually _is_ two sentences that have been (again for unknown
reasons) collapsed into one. 'Having standards' and 'combining elements' are
two separate actions and belong in two separate sentences.
Repeating the auxiliary (or not) is by no means "bad English", but does
nothing to improve the sentence.
I would be tempted to try something like this:
The bank should (a) have clear standards for the collection and modification
of all elements, and (b) combine these elements in a manner that most
effectively enables it to quantify its exposure to operational risk.
Still "dense and full", not to mention boring, but the two separate actions
("have standards" and "combine elements") are clearly delineated rather than
mashed together. It's an improvement in clarity, but not in elegance.
According to your rules, we don't get to do both.
In any case, I pity whoever is expected to read and act upon this sort of
drivel.
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
