Someone just posted a question online about the “lexical meaning of hate speech.”

What – I want to know – is the difference between meaning and lexical meaning?

Good writing never sounds pompous. Develop the habit of writing straightforward sentences. Treat unnecessary words like unnecessary employees: get rid of them.

If you enjoy classical music, you’ve probably heard of Domenico Scarlatti (1685-1757). He’s most famous for his harpsichord music.

Here’s a snippet of information that was just posted on our TV’s classical music station:

Scarlatti married his wife, Maria Caterina Gentili, at the age of 43.

It’s a sentence that needs improvement!

The first problem is this unnecessary sentence: Scarlatti married his wife….

If you were a man in the 1700s, who – pray – would you marry besides a wife? And there’s another problem: who was 43? The sentence has an indefinite pronoun reference…meaning (in plain English) that either Domenico or Maria could have been 43.

With a little effort, you can come up with a better sentence:

Scarlatti married Maria Caterina Gentili when he was 43.  BETTER

OR:

When Scarlatti was 43, he married Maria Caterina Gentili.  BETTER

Last week Charlie and I put our heads together to improve a sentence in one of his drafts. He was writing about protecting landscape plants from cold damage:

What the frost blanket, old bed sheet, or cardboard box accomplishes is to slow down the passage of heat stored in the ground and to hold it around the plant.

The word is tells you that this is a static sentence. Nothing is moving or changing. The frost blanket (or old bed sheet or cardboard box) exists, and that’s all.

Is (and are, was, were, and will be) are useful words, of course. Every writer (including me!) uses them all the time. But professional writers always take a moment to see if a more interesting word is called for.

In today’s sentence, we got rid of is altogether. Here’s the revised sentence:

The frost blanket, old bed sheet, or cardboard box slows down the passage of heat stored in the ground, holding it around the plant.  BETTER

It’s a more active sentence now. And the revision is six words shorter – another step towards greater readability.

An old bed sheet protects a tender plant from freeze damage.

Charlie and I often listen to classical music free, courtesy of our cable TV subscription. We especially enjoy the biographical snippets posted on the screen while the music is playing.

Sometimes, though, the writing falls short. I used to have an English teacher who kept urging us to “End strong!” when we were writing. I thought of him when I read this sentence about Chopin. Instead of “ending strong,” it sputters to the finish line:

When Frédéric Chopin was seven years old, he wrote the Polonaise in G Minor, which was printed.  WEAK

I think my former English teacher would be pleased with my rewrite:

The Polonaise in G Minor was published when Frédéric Chopin was only seven years old.  BETTER

But now we have another problem: my sentence is written in passive voice. Isn’t that bad writing?

The answer is…not always. Sometimes passive voice can solve a writing problem. Today’s sentence needs more emphasis. Using passive voice (“was published”) puts the Polonaise in G Minor at the beginning of the sentence. The result is a  sentence that starts strong and stays strong. 

Photo by Leo Reynolds

My friend Mike Goronsky came up with a clever way to make sure you’re using hyphens correctly in compound expressions.

It’s an obscure rule but a useful one. Often we need a hyphen with a two-word description:

He had a deadly-looking weapon.  CORRECT

But did you notice that “often”? Sometimes you don’t need a hyphen:

a badly written bill  CORRECT

How do you tell the difference? The answer is that adverbs don’t get hyphens.

But what if you’re a little uncertain about adverbs? English teachers always tell you to look for -ly words (sadly, merrily). There’s a catch, though. Some -ly words aren’t adverbs – ugly and costly, for example. How can you tell? Mike has come to the rescue!

Try this exercise he created – removing the second word. It makes everything crystal-clear:

a highly regarded study
Remove the second word “regarded.”
Now you have a “highly study.” Doesn’t make sense.
It’s an adverb! No hyphen.

the dimly lit study
Remove the second word “lit.”
Now you have “the dimly study.” No good.
It’s an adverb! No hyphen.

the barely worn dress
Remove the second word “worn.”
Now you have “the barely dress.” Ugh!
It’s an adverb! No hyphen.

BUT…

early-morning flight
Remove the second word “morning.”
You’re left with “early flight.” Makes total sense.
It’s an adjective! Add the hyphen in “early-morning flight.”

friendly-looking dog
Remove the second word “looking.”
Now you have “friendly dog.” Yay! Makes sense.
It’s an adjective! Add the hyphen in “friendly-looking dog.”

a family-friendly location
Remove the second word “friendly.”
You’re left with “a family location.” It’s an adjective! APPLAUSE! Add a hyphen!

Nobody could ever get this wrong using this trick! 😉😉

Last week I started reading a New York Times article about the CDC process for approving Covid booster shots. But I stopped reading when I read this sentence:

Even though Slavitt and Walensky were speaking on a public podcast, their tone at times resembled that of a private conversation between colleagues.

No, no, no! I refuse to use “that of.” It’s clumsy and adds nothing to a sentence.

Grammarians will undoubtedly argue with me. You need “that of” to make the sentence logical. Otherwise you’re comparing a tone to a conversation – apples and oranges, so to speak. 

I disagree: “that of” is overkill and unnecessary. No reader is  going to be confused if you omit “that of.” Here’s a useful rule for you: Readability is always more important than grammar. 

Here’s my version:

Even though Slavitt and Walensky were speaking on a public podcast, it sounded like a private conversation between colleagues.

Problems at Facebook have been front-page news this week! Concerns about Facebook are nothing new.  A 2020 New Yorker article explored the role that Facebook played in electing President Trump in 2016.

Here’s an excerpt from the article. Can you spot an unnecessary word?