Sunday, February 5, 2012
Writing question from a Noob
My talking and writing aren't terribly distinct. I more or less learned how to talk from reading, and this blog is partially my re-learning how to write from how I speak. And so...I don't really understand writing. So...questions. How does one, in writing, conveniently point out which word(s) the emphasis of a sentence is on? I'm currently, incorrectly, using capitalization to do this...and I've historically used bolds or italics. And I think that the particular word-emphases change the meaning of the sentences....How do I do it? Am I supposed to stop writing sentences where word emphases in a spoken sentence would matter? Or is there a correct approach?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Italics for emphasis. Caps if you want to shout.
If you don't have italics, then I'd probably use bold (if present). With just ascii, I mostly avoid emphasis but will use asterisks *emphatically* at times. I used to use caps for emphasis but it's too much like shouting for my taste. Emphasis is not so much about being loud as it is changing the way the word is pronounced.
I'll try emphasis with italics. Thanks.
Leonard's got a pithy summation there.
I tend want to cover my ears when I see text in all caps. It shouts in my head.
The other thing to consider, too, is that most people will tend to understand as emphasized whatever is closest to the verb. See when I say it the other way: Whatever is closest to the verb is emphasized.
Those are poorly constructed examples, but I read more emphasis on "closest" in the first and "emphasized" in the second.
If you want to understand the rules for writing - rules which will rarely if ever let you down, are sensible and clearly explained, and recognized everywhere - read Elements of Style by Strunk and White.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0205632645/ref=nosim/daringfirebal-20
It's not a reference - or at least, not entirely. It's worth reading cover to cover.
That's a fascinating question.
The easy way out is to read your Edward Tufte and make use of the vast variety of different fonts and special effects that modern computerized text offer us. We can offer the reader more data than just the basic words, so why not?
But one is left with the nagging suspicion that Winston Churchill would have done much, much, better merely using sentence structure. Once this approach can be combined with Tufte style parallel data presentation, then even better writing would result. So it seems as though it should be attempted.
One is also left with the nagging suspicion that this has all be done before, many times, and that if we only knew where to look it would all be set out for us. Maybe Strunk and White? NOT Strunk/White
David Friedman wrote that it was a professional point of pride as a writer to never use bold, caps or italics. You can use things like word order and word choice instead. I find working with that constraint makes my writing better. (I also find it takes me a remarkably long time to write terse comments, but that's another issue.)
You might look at the wikipedia article on "clefting". Also, the article on the "English passive voice" makes the important point that it is used to draw attention to the receiver of the action, rather than just being a waffle as some would have it. Politics and the English language by Orwell is worth a read.
In general, unless you are aiming for improving your non-blog writing, I'd say your style suits you well enough as it is.
Do read the criticisms section on Strunk and White in wikipedia.
Sometimes the solution is to not write sentences where emphasis matters, using instead the uniqueness of print and its advantages over speaking.
Post a Comment