The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Is "whille" redundant? Options
Koh Elaine
Posted: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 12:59:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/4/2012
Posts: 6,198
Neurons: 25,691
Moradabad: A woman and a man were captured in CCTV footage while kidnapping an eight-month-old who was sleeping next to his mother at a bus stand in Uttar Pradesh's Moradabad.

Is "while" redundant?

Posted: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:12:36 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,598
Neurons: 52,671
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
(Captured "on" CCTV ...)

I wouldn't call it redundant - but definitely optional.

And, additionally, the sentence is far too long and contains too much information. Thus it doesn't read well as a news item. (Remember the "One sentence = One thought" paradigm we've talked about previously?)
Posted: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 2:21:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/6/2014
Posts: 318
Neurons: 29,755
Location: Kentwood, Michigan, United States
I completely concur with Romany's first two statements, the most pertinent being that "while" may not be redundant, but you're right that it's not necessary.

But I disagree with the third comment – about length and "too much information" – especially with regard to news reports. The guideline Romany gives is good advice for writing, for journalism, for conveying information in a useful manner ... but it should not be said that it bucks current news trends. The way many of the lines you post read is the way news anchors try to read the news. If an anchor can get the entire story in one sentence (using grammar techniques, punctuation, verbal inflections, etc.) without losing the audience, then they can get that much more information in their half hour broadcast. They actually applaud a well-written sentence that captures everything and the anchors who can deliver them.

It is no surprise, then, that you might be finding similar very lengthy sentences in print. Print editors may very well be better off taking Romany's advice, I agree – because print articles and spoken broadcasts are two different things and they'll be ingested differently by their respective audiences – but that fact does nothing to alter how print journalism is actually doing their job.

If you are finding them this way, Koh, then this is how you should receive them. If they're grammatically fractured and unsustainable, sure, but if we can see a way to fill the cracks and keep their run-on sentences on the tracks, then that is our jobs as editors. To do otherwise is to fundamentally alter the "voice" of the original author.

the Weasel
WeaselWorks Freelance Editing
Users browsing this topic

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.