On 2009-12-01, at 3:32 PM, Eric Muhr wrote:

> It may be clear, but it's also redundant. The construction can be simplified in order to cut down on the possibility of misinterpretation. Communicators who fail to consider the problem of ambiguity demonstrate a lack of empathy for their audience and a lack of clarity in thought.

Reduce redundancy to reduce ambiguity, eh?

Many determiners in the quoted text above seem superfluous (e.g., a lack -> lack)?
Are the modals auxiliary verbs 'may' and 'can' really needed? 
Surely 'in order' is out of order.
And since the pronoun 'it' is obviously singular, conjugating 'be' for subject verb agreement is disagreeable.
Actually, many languages get by just fine without marking number, so we might as well do away with plural forms.
'Communicators' are clearly human so 'who' is redundant. Replace with 'that'.

Or perhaps a certain amount of redundancy is natural and even desirable.

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/