{"id":1052,"date":"2015-12-29T22:00:39","date_gmt":"2015-12-30T03:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/?p=1052"},"modified":"2018-07-06T11:07:55","modified_gmt":"2018-07-06T15:07:55","slug":"oldies-but-goodies-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/oldies-but-goodies-iii\/","title":{"rendered":"Oldies but Goodies III"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"16735580528_6d7c76d3ea_z\"<\/a><\/p>\n

To round out the year, let’s review a few more issues presented in 2015.<\/p>\n

Historic<\/em> or historical<\/em>?<\/h2>\n

1. The visiting scholar\u2019s insights into today\u2019s media contained a surprising number of (historic\/historical) references.<\/p>\n

2. The town\u2019s\u00a0(historic\/historical) vote 30 years ago to build a six-lane bridge over the river ushered in a period of unprecedented prosperity.<\/p>\n

Historical<\/em> signifies merely that something happened in the past or relates to history. Historic<\/em> means momentous<\/em> \u2013 deserving of a place in history. Therefore, we want historical<\/em> in #1 and historic<\/em> in #2.<\/p>\n

Imply<\/em> or infer<\/em>?<\/h2>\n

1.\u00a0In his remarks at the all-staff meeting, our CEO (implied\/inferred) that a new vacation policy would go into effect in July 2016.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0Based on my neighbor\u2019s description of the resort and its surroundings, I\u2019m (implying\/inferring) we\u2019ll find a new trail to hike every day.<\/p>\n

Infer<\/em> and imply<\/em> are fraternal twins, not identical twins. They go together, in a way, but they\u2019re not interchangeable. When we imply<\/em> we express something ambiguously \u2013 either purposely or inadvertently \u2013 and then the recipient of our message needs to\u00a0infer<\/em>\u00a0what we mean.<\/p>\n

The common error is using infer<\/em> instead of imply<\/em>, as in this example: Are you inferring that I\u2019m not qualified for the position?<\/em> Here, the speaker or writer is using the wrong twin. The question should be Are you\u00a0implying\u00a0that I\u2019m not qualified for the position?<\/em><\/p>\n

Therefore, we want implied<\/em> in #1 and inferring<\/em> in #2.<\/p>\n

What’s wrong with this sentence?<\/h2>\n

We only reviewed sales figures in the morning.<\/p>\n

As discussed in a few posts, an extremely common misstep is placing only<\/em> in the wrong spot. Often, it’s a case of no harm, no foul because clarity is maintained despite the glitch. But in a sentence like this one we have ambiguity. Taken literally, the sentence would seem to mean that the sales figures were\u00a0only reviewed<\/em>\u00a0when more could have happened. For example, the figures could have been analyzed statistically or used in forecasting, but most likely the real meaning is one of the following two:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

A. We reviewed\u00a0only sales figures<\/em>\u00a0in the morning.<\/em>\u00a0(We could have gone over other data \u2013 such as expenses \u2013 but only sales figures were discussed.)<\/p>\n

B. We reviewed sales figures\u00a0only in the morning.<\/em>\u00a0(The topic of sales figures did not come up in the afternoon session.)<\/p>\n

And if putting only<\/em> where it belongs sounds awkward, we can always reword: A.\u00a0In the morning we\u00a0didn’t review any data beyond sales figures.\u00a0<\/em>B.\u00a0We reviewed sales figures in the morning only.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

So even though a sentence like\u00a0I only watched two episodes<\/em>\u00a0is clear, I watched only two episodes<\/em>\u00a0is better writing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In addition to presenting workshops on writing in the workplace, Norm is a writer, editor, and writing coach. His\u00a0<\/em>100+ Instant Writing Tips<\/span>\u00a0is a brief \u201cnon-textbook\u201d to help individuals overcome common writing errors and write with more finesse and impact. Learn more at\u00a0http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/index.shtml<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To round out the year, let’s review a few more issues presented in 2015. Historic or historical? 1. The visiting scholar\u2019s insights into today\u2019s media contained a surprising number of (historic\/historical) references. 2. The town\u2019s\u00a0(historic\/historical) vote 30 years ago to … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,10],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1052"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1052"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1052\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1066,"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1052\/revisions\/1066"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1052"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1052"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.normfriedman.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1052"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}