Set in Style

Here’s some advice (from The Elements of Style):

Modifiers should come, if possible, next to the words they modify.

The reasoning is simple: when a modifier appears right next to what it modifies, it’s clear to the reader what’s being modified. He doesn’t have to stop and wonder.

Consider the following excerpt from an attorney-authored article about drafting acquisition agreements:

An alternative, which addresses some of these concerns, while still retaining many of the benefits of arbitration, is to provide a hybrid approach whereby most matters are addressed by arbitration . . . .

Note the clause which addresses some of these concerns. Given its placement, it’s clear what’s being modified: an alternative. The reader doesn’t have to stop and think about it.

Now, consider the following excerpt (about a provision in an acquisition agreement to determine which party gets to pay the other’s legal fees in case of a dispute) from the same article:

On the other hand, such a provision should encourage the parties to think carefully before commencing suit (especially when the claim is questionable), which may promote negotiation of a settlement in the event of a dispute.

What does the nonrestrictive clause that ends the sentence modify? From its placement, it seems to modify commencing suit. But that doesn’t make good sense. The author intended it to modify a provision, but he put so much verbiage between the substantive and its modifier, the reader has to stop and think about it.

The solution? Put the modifier near what it modifies, like so:

On the other hand, such a provision, which could promote negotiation of a settlement in the event of a dispute, encourages the parties to think carefully before commencing suit (especially when the claim is questionable).

____________
Another example from another attorney-authored article published by the same firm (and appearing in the same newsletter):

Depending on the structure of the acquisition transaction, the sale of a business may trigger COBRA obligations. In some cases, the buyer may have COBRA obligations to seller’s former employees, which need to be properly managed.

Given its placement, the nonrestrictive clause at the end of the sentence modifies the seller’s former employees. It says that they must be properly managed; but that’s not what the author intended. What he meant to say was:

Depending on the structure of the acquisition transaction, the buyer could have COBRA obligations to the seller’s former employees. If so, those obligations must met.

Another example from that article:

Qualified retirement plans (such as pension plans and 401(k) plans), must meet a host of annual non-discrimination tests. Failing any of these tests disqualifies the plan, which can have potentially ruinous financial consequences.

The problem here isn’t that the reader might be confused as to what the nonrestrictive clause at the end of the sentence modifies. The problem is of a different variety.

The first sentence speaks of plans (plural). The second sentence speaks of the plan (singular). What we have here is a singular/plural disagreement, which is easily corrected:

A qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(k) plan, must meet a host of annual non-discrimination tests. Failing any of these tests disqualifies the plan, thus raising the potential for severe financial consequences.

One last example, which comes from another article in the same newsletter:

Sometimes the best suitors are companies engaged in similar business operations in a different region. Such a company might either wish to expand territorially (and hence be a suitable buyer) or pursue an exit strategy for its owners (and hence be a suitable seller).

Here we have the same problem. The first sentence speaks of suitors (plural) but the second speaks of a company (singular). Again, this type of error is easily corrected:

Sometimes the best suitor is a competitor operating in a different region. A competitor might wish to expand territorially (it could be a potential buyer) or its owners might wish to pursue an exit strategy (it could be a potential seller).

____________
Client alerts and newsletters can be very effective marketing tools. But they can do just as much harm as good. They can support a firm’s claim of excellence in all it does, or they can belie that claim. They can attract potential clients, or make them wonder: is this firm that careless when it comes to drafting acquisition agreements?

This entry was posted 18 April 2007 at 15:40 and is filed under Writing & Editing. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.