Write for Business - Blog

I write for a living. So do most of my friends. We care about language use, and sometimes we debate a particular issue of grammar. Often we point to historical sources to support our views, but sometimes the sources disagree.

Consider the use of hopefully in the sentence "Hopefully it won't rain."

When asked what he would say to a friend who used hopefully in this manner, the late, great Isaac Asimov responded that he would not have such friends.

I love Isaac Asimov, and he gave a pretty funny reply. But when grammar is used as a measuring rod for friendship, something's wrong.

Purists would argue that when the adverb hopefully is used in the example above, it isn't modifying any specific word or phrase. Recently, however, hopefully has gained acceptance as a "sentence adverb," which is to say it can modify an entire sentence. See "Grammar Girl's" discussion of hopefully.

A similar debate rages on about the "serial comma." (Some may fault me for discussing punctuation in a grammar post, but for most people "grammar" is a catch-all for correct language.) For journalists, a list such as "peaches, porridge and poultry" should have only one comma. For most everyone else, such lists need two commas to avoid potential confusion, as in "I'd like to thank my parents, God and Coach Simmons."

I'd suggest that debating the serial comma is like arguing whether (or not) to extend one's pinky while sipping tea. If you're drinking from a mug and need that pinky to help hold it, by all means do so. If you're using a more delicate teacup and the pinky won't fit, curl it under or stick it out - whichever you prefer. True gentility does not judge people whose preference differs.

When we use good grammar, we show respect to our readers by adhering to a standard that makes our words and meaning easier to grasp. If as a result we appear intelligent and trustworthy, that is merely a fringe benefit.

When grammar is used to judge other people, however, it becomes snobbery. Snobbery is prejudice, and prejudice is a matter of ignorance. So yes, it is possible for proper grammar to lead a person into ignorance. Fortunately, with an open mind, that pitfall is easy to avoid.

- Lester Smith

In an age as filled with media as ours is, it's sometimes difficult to be heard above all the noise. The last thing anyone should do is add to that noise.

Why is it, then, that when writing, so many people simply duplicate the commonplace models they see every day?

Consider the short biographies on Twitter accounts, for example. Most of them look pretty much the same. How many times have you lost interest halfway through? It's obvious that the listed topics mean something to the writer, but not so much to the reader. The same can be said of most press releases, blog entries, and business letters.

Here's a tip.

Start collecting examples of striking writing. Save a copy of each Twitter bio that makes you chuckle; each business letter that made you perk up, even for a moment; each e-mail message that motivates you to follow through. Think about what caught your attention, and make a note. Was it a clever heading, a masterful organization, an engaging tone?

The next time you have to write something, go to your file of outstanding examples, and use one as a model. You don't have to blaze a trail to use it and rise above the crowd.

Do you have any online examples of great bios, blog posts, or other writing to share? I'd love to add them to my own file of models. Please leave a comment. Thanks!

- Lester Smith

Do you want to make sure your e-mail gets results? Here are three simple tips for making your messages stand out from the crowd.

1. Write a clear subject line.

Think how often you receive an e-mail, scan it, and realize you can't deal with it's business immediately. Later, when time permits, you browse your inbox for that message, but the subject line was blank or vague. You're forced to run a computer search for a phrase you remember, then scan the contents of each resulting message to find the right one. Often you end up deciding that, again, there isn't enough time for this, and the business will have to be delayed further. Ultimately, it may never be dealt with.

Now think of those times when you receive an e-mail with a subject line that clearly states the message's purpose. You're able to quickly decide whether time permits to deal with it now. If the business has to be delayed, later you're able to scan the subject lines in your inbox and easily pick out the message you need. The time savings means you can deal with the business and move on to the next item on your list. You're happy and grateful, and you can't help but admire the sender, which means you'll be more receptive to messages from that person in the future.

As e-mail senders, we need to be that person other people feel good about. Taking care to write clear subject lines is arguably the most important step toward that goal.

2. Deal with one topic only.

E-mail is designed for rapid response. It's a mistake, then, to slow things down by including multiple topics in one message. Readers may have time to deal with one of the issues but need to delay the others. Often they forget to come back. Assuming they do return, they have to scan through the text of the former topic to reach the remaining ones. Frustration builds.

If you must deal with separate issues, put them in separate e-mail messages (each with its own clear subject line). That way your readers can tackle each and delete or archive it as time permits. Again, they'll think well of you and be more responsive in the future.

3. Reread before sending, and delete every word possible.

When it comes to e-mail messages, the more succinct the better. So treat your e-mail as you would any more formal piece of writing. Use the writing process: Plan the ideas you need to cover; draft a copy of the message; revise it for clarity; and edit it for correctness. During that last step, specifically look for clutter that might be forgiven in a longer writing (in an extended memo or report, for instance). The fewer words your recipient has to read, the more likely you'll receive a quick and favorable response.

Conclusion

As you can see, none of these tips is difficult to accomplish. However, they all take just a bit of discipline. That little bit of extra care is like the cut and polish that makes a finished diamond sparkle among even bigger, uncut ones.

- Lester Smith

If you're like most people, the word "grammar" makes you cringe. It conjures up memories of long, dull classes in fifth grade, of rules that choke the life out of writing and then dissect it like a dead frog.

Happily, there are actually not just one but four grammars. Let me explain why that's a good thing.

Prehistoric people invented talking before there were any rules at all. You can still see this in the way children learn to speak. They just start gabbing, putting words together, discovering what gets the point across and what doesn't. This sort of communication is Grammar One: The way people speak.

Grammar Two is the study of the way people speak. This grammar isn't of much interest to anyone but linguists. The closest it comes to daily life may be when parents attempt to correct a child's usage - "I went," Tommy, not "I goed." Of course, we all know what Tommy meant by "I goed," but that isn't Standard English. (And Tommy doesn't yet know that "I goad" has its own, very different meaning.)

Grammar Three is the way people write. Writing brings an added level of formality to language, because it can't rely on the context of speech. Even the most lax dialog in a summer novel is less chaotic than real conversation. Similarly, even the most personal letters are more controlled than a face-to-face talk. Instruction manuals, business proposals, and marketing plans require even more care, to ensure that the point gets across. Let me restate this: Grammar three requires more care than grammar one simply to ensure that the point comes across clearly.

Grammar Four is the study of the way people write. This is the language of grammarians. It's purpose is not communication but classification. And classification inevitably brings about rigidification. When you're sorting things into boxes, and you come across something that doesn't fit, it's tempting to pitch it out rather than figure out how it could fit - or admit that it's time to make a new box.

You can consider these four grammars as a continuum:

Speech > Study of speech > Writing > Study of Writing

This is the direction I've introduced in the paragraphs above. It provides a common-sense reason for being casual in speaking and taking more care in preparing important documents.

There is a danger in reversing the continuum:

Study of writing > Writing > Study of speech > Speech

When we start to believe that rules create communication, rather than the other way around, we give up our natural human legacy as makers of meaning and become little more than code talkers, at risk of choking on our words.

What are your own experiences with and opinions of grammar? Are you someone to whom grammar "comes naturally" or a person who has to struggle with it? Do you love it, or does it make you crazy? We'd love to hear your comments.

- Lester Smith