Subj : A rule needed :)
To   : Alexander Koryagin
From : Ardith Hinton
Date : Wed Dec 04 2019 23:42:07

Hi, Alexander!  Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

 AK>  I also don't see any evidence indicating Annabel had been
 AK>  employed in the same capacity, but IMHO also there is no
 AK>  ground to suggest that a stenographer is as unique position
 AK>  in a firm as its President.

 AH>  |is in as unique a position

 AK>  Maybe it is better to remove "position"?:
 AK>  "...but, IMHO, also there is no ground to suggest that a
 AK>  stenographer is as unique in a firm as its President."


          From a stylistic POV, yes.  I added a third "in" to the sentence, and 
while it's grammatically correct it sounds awkward.  Now I reckon you're trying 
to prune excess verbiage... just as native speakers do when e.g. they leave out 
"the" if the definite article is not needed for clarity.

          WRT the meaning of the sentence, I hear what Paul is saying too.  :-)



 AH>  The rule you cited mentions two important factors... the
 AH>  uniqueness of the job & the formality of the job description.
 AH>  In everyday life things may not be quite so simple.  But as
 AH>  long as you know rules have exceptions I can't think of a
 AH>  better one. :-))

 AK>  As one Murphy law says, "For every human problem, there is a
 AK>  neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong." ;-)


          Uh-huh.  One of the important lessons I learned from studying math is 
that an answer which comes easily is probably wrong, and I've said on more than 
one occasion here that when people oversimplify matters for young children they 
create difficulties for teachers in the later grades.  The same applies both to 
English language & literature and to science, in my experience.  I am delighted 
to work with readers like you who wait patiently while I mull things over.  :-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

.