I’m afraid I still don’t see the ‘lazy thinking’ that you claim the sentence is evidence of. My reading of it is that the writer didn’t use something like ‘harmed’ because she did not want to be precise about the effect. She wanted to express the notion that email has had an effect on writing skills and that effect has been negative. To say email ‘harmed’ writing skills is making a more substantial, precise claim. For me however the unusual (in English) order adverb - verb gives the sentence an awkward feel. I’d agree that the sentence is somewhat stilted but I had no problem understanding it the first time I read it. If anything I’d say this is the result of over-thinking, and trying to jam everything she wanted to say into one sentence.

As for ‘reliance’, I still really don’t see how it’s ‘contorted’ or a ‘Frankenverb’. It is no more a verb than ‘defiance’ or ‘presence’ are. English is full of nouns derived from verbs, are you opposed to all of them? According to my OED ‘reliance’ has been in English since at least 1607, so it’s pretty well established.

I’m a lexicographer but as I’ve mostly worked on bilingual dictionaries of small languages (in Australia and Papua New Guinea) usage issues have not been very relevant in my work. However my understanding is that where ‘usage problems’ are mentioned it is usually not because they affect communicative understanding but because people are not sure what they should do and want a guide.

Regards the AHD ‘usage problems’ have you read the AHD Introduction (http://www.bartleby.com/64/13.html)? It explains that the ‘usage problem’ and ‘usage note’ items are about acceptability, not grammaticality. You might also find Geoffrey Nunberg’s essay on usage for the AHD (at http://www.bartleby.com/61/7.html) interesting.

You’re right, the first problem evident upon looking at that sentence is stylistic. And style is indeed often a matter of taste.

But sometimes, style can indicate functional problems. I think that’s the problem here.

The deeper malfunction here is that this sentence indicates lazy thinking and at least a couple levels of poor editorial judgment — in a column intended to promote writing quality.

In this case, the speaker said “negatively impacted” instead of a simple, precise, effective verb, like “harmed.” In other words, she actively undermined the very point she was trying to make. Then, the column’s author had no problem including that quote in the final piece.

Similarly, “reliance” makes a spectacularly weak and confusing sentence subject. Why? Because it is a verb contorted to serve as a noun. Yes, the final form is a noun — but consider the lazy thinking this particular noun indicates. The reader is left to figure out who is doing what in that sentence. Really, that’s embarrassing — especially in a quote that complains about unclear writing.

Here’s the thing: Andrea Kay chose to bemoan the quality of business writing in her syndicated column. Yet in that column she found it acceptable to include a quote that committed precisely the stylistic/grammatical sins she was bemoaning. That quote made it through the editing process at her syndicate. Then the business editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review considered it fit to run on page 1 of the business section.

Normally I would consider a cascading editorial lapse in an article about writing quality merely ironic, but in this case I honestly find it sad.

Yes, that’s my opinion. My opinion does count. So does yours, of course, and I appreciate that you spoke up.

Oh, and about the “usage problem” notation: My understanding is that a dictionary specifically notes a “usage problem” when that problem has become so prevalent that lexicographers believe it’s impeding or distorting communication. They have other ways of noting the normal evolution of words and usage that happen all the time in language. If I’m mistaken about that, I’d appreciate an update.

Thanks,

- Amy Gahran

In order to understand the ‘usage problem’ you’ve got to read the usage note a bit further down. That the AHD notes the word as having a ‘usage problem’ doesn’t mean there’s a real problem. It’s just that a majority of their ‘Usage Panel’ disapproves of these ways of using ‘impacts’. But as the note says, it’s been used that way for decades and this will probably continue. What this comes down to is stylistics, taste, and that is not something anyone can be dogmatic or absolutist about. As the AHD says ‘It is unclear why this usage provokes such a strong response,…’

As far as ‘reliance’ goes, it is a noun both grammatically and linguistically (what’s the difference?). I really don’t understand what you mean when you say you consider it a ‘Frankenverb’–are there many other nouns that you object to in this way?

As I’ve been trying to indicate, this is not about what’s ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’, it’s about personal stylistic preferences. If your personal preferences in writing include not using the verb ‘impact’ in the way you quote, fair enough. And if you don’t like the word ‘reliance’ for some reason, that’s ok by me. But to say these are ‘incorrect’ is itself incorrect.

Finally, thanks for the link to the sentence diagramming site.

Um, Doug, you might want to read that again yourself. The dictionary specifically called it a usage problem (which is why I highlighted that part of the definition).

I also said: “In this case, ‘reliance’ is a verb contorted to serve as a noun.” Grammatically, it is a noun. But linguistically, it’s what I’d consider a “Frankenverb.”

And here’s a good resource that demonstrates how to diagram a sentence.

As for ‘reliance’ I’m surprised you say it’s a verb–it’s actually a noun derived from a verb (rely). And surely the subect of the sentence is ‘The intense reliance on e-mail to conduct business’?

Laura (comment no. 2) says it’s passive, but clearly it’s active. She also says it doesn’t have a subject, but obviously it does (see above).

So I’m really not sure what everyone’s problem is with this sentence, except that it’s a bit stylistically awkward, but that’s hardly something to make such a big deal of.

I’m curious about this ‘diagramming’ of sentences that several have mentioned. Does this refer to drawing trees to parse the sentence structure?

The finished product used the term “more impactful” instead of my “more powerful”.

Clearly, I had little impact on this client! Dreadful.

Even more dreadful: the editor was an English major.

Because many people rely primarily on email for business communication, their writing skills have atrophied.

or

People who use email as their sole form of communication often lack writing skills.

There is no real subject of that sentence. It’s completely and totally passive and not a good use of passive at that. Ugh. By the way, I do know how to diagram sentences and the woman who taught me would probably throw that sentence away.

Hmn… the whole damn thing is jumbled.

As is, it sounds as if she’s claiming that email cripples the hand.

Actually, I’m writing to tell you I love your material.

Cheers,
Peter Stone