how do i rewrite this in a educational way? need ASAP
A 92 year old man named Siert Bruins is getting charged for killing somebody in 1944.
I would also type out the age so that the hyphens don't look ugly with a mix of numbers and letters.
I think that "is being charged" utilizes a better verb.
I would use "someone" because it sounds less callous than somebody.
Think about it: "...is being charged for killing 'some body.'" (It sounds like you are calling the departed a body.)
|link comment||edited Sep 07 '13 at 05:40 Aaron Prejean Expert|
o_o Calling what is now a corpse "some body" is too callous for formal writing (such as journalism), hence the necessary swap to the interchangeable pronoun, 'someone'. Calling my comment 'ridiculous' is itself 'ridiculous', and clearly done by someone who has never had to proofread editorials (I have). You simply do not call decedents "somebodies" in print... it just isn't done... (...because it is callous.) The only reason you would say "formally" charged is because now the authorities are alleging the crime and he is not being "informally" charged by theorists... You did not say to take out formally; you placed it in an inappropriate position... I see no problem with taking it out, and I would not have corrected you had you taken it out. The reason you need to put 'which' in your sentence is for connotation: a murder DID happen, and is being referenced--one WHICH he allegedly committed. It isn't questionable whether there was a murder done, and it isn't alleged THAT he committed an unreferenced murder. The pronoun can be left out... only if it doesn't obfuscate the meaning. ;) Long story short, my comments were valid and accurate, and there really was no call for labeling someone as well-educated and well-intentioned as myself (or my comment) 'ridiculous'.
Let's see... what else is there... oh, yeah, I see that you used the verb I suggested for your "formal" writing, so at least we can agree on something!
(Note that I used "'that' you used" and omitted "'that' I suggested"; see how suave I am with my relative pronouns?!?!)
|link comment||edited Sep 08 '13 at 23:47 Aaron Prejean Expert|
My response was meant to be concise, as you would read in a newspaper. In English, depending on the register, you may use an adverb before the verb it modifies, as long as it is clear which or what verb it is modifying. The original question was how to write the sentence in a more "educational" way; therefore, the comment about callousness is ridiculous. Additionally, if we take out "formally", it is exactly how you wrote it (is being charged), and even more concise. Also, the relative pronoun can be left out, again, depending on the register one uses. In journalism, this is done all of the time, and his question sounded to me as if he was in a journalism class. If you are going to use such a high register, then you should also use the personal pronoun before his name.
|link||answered Sep 08 '13 at 18:56 Karen Kramberg New member|
I called the comment ridiculous, not you. I don't make ad hominem arguments. He asked a specific question, which I felt you didn't answer in the context he asked it. I have and had no problem with your answer, but English is much more fluid in syntax than most other languages. That sentence could be rewritten many, many different ways, and you seemed to indicate that my sentence wasn't and isn't "correct". It is, as is your sentence. I also did not use "somebody", for no other reason than to be more concise. A lot of this back and forth, I believe, is due to lack of sufficient information by the asker of the question. By the way, I have been published in peer reviewed journals and I am a contributing editor to a major continuing education provider, so your ad hominem attack makes you seem much less educated than you assert. We are all well intentioned (I hope), but there is always more than one way to skin a cat, depending on one's audience and writing style, but life is too short to write the fifteen or so different ways that I could have re-written that sentence. By the way, very suave, thanks for the levity. . . :-)
|link comment||answered Sep 09 '13 at 17:28 Karen Kramberg New member|
(1) I didn't say you used somebody. I said that calling my comment about the use of "somebody" to reference a decedent as being "ridiculous" was itself "ridiculous". Since you are familiar with "ad hominem", I suppose you are familiar with "strawman".
(2) Yes, English is very fluidic and, in order to write with advanced prose, we should place modifiers in the appropriate and least-confusing order--particularly in formal writing. Local newspapers are not to be written above a seventh-grade reading level.
You should have written "he is being formally charged" so that the modifier is appropriately placed. This is not a debate--which is probably why you chose to ignore it.
(3) Playing passive-aggressive victim by calling what was an accurate observation "ridiculous" (which was an affirmation of my knowledge) (WHEN I DIDN'T EVEN SAY IT IN RESPONSE TO YOU) is either an ad hominem attack (in which case I rebutted ad hominem with ad hominem) or my comment stating what I think your lack of knowledge is (not proofreading editorials) is also not an ad hominem attack (what is the logical fallacy for falsely asserting a logical fallacy? Oh, yeah...). You are arguing with an attorney; I do know my logical fallacies, thank you.
(4) Retort why my two corrections (which were not rudely given) were innacurate, or abate your own "ad hominem", "strawmanning", "tu quoque", "fallicious fallacy" attack.
HEY, SISTER, to further display how fun it is to be passive aggressive, I answered your question!
|link comment||edited Sep 09 '13 at 23:57 Aaron Prejean Expert|
Hero of the day
Person voted on the most questions.