No, not that colon

When I ask people what type of punctuation causes them the most problems, they usually go straight for commas. However, when I ask how many of them know how to use colons, most just give me a puzzled stare. They don’t know, and they prefer not to think about it. Colons make them uneasy. Colons, however, are actually fairly easy to use once you understand what they do.

The basic rule for colons, stated so that most people understand, is this: what follows the colon must expand on or explain what immediately precedes the colon.

Note that I used a colon in that sentence. What follows the colon is the rule on how to use the colon; what precedes the colon states that this is the rule. Generally, writers use colons just before lists. But the list should expand on what immediately precedes the colon, so what immediately precedes the colon should name the list. Have a look at the next example:

The tester has six main parts:  a dynamometer, a shock-absorbing unit, two grips, a stabilizer bar, a power screw, and a hand wheel.

You notice that right before the colon and the list we have “six main parts”; that names the list. What follows the colon is the actual list.

Where I see colons misused most often is at the end of the introduction of scientific articles where authors list their objectives.

“Our objectives in this research were: 1.) to test X, 2.) to determine Y, and 3.) to analyze Z.”

This is incorrect. A colon does not follow a verb. This can be corrected in one of two ways:

“Our objectives in this research were 1.) to test X, 2.) to determine Y, and 3.) to analyze Z.”

“In our research, we had three objectives: 1.) to test X, 2.) to determine Y, and 3.) to analyze Z.”

You’ll notice that in the first correction, we simply omitted the colon. That is perfectly correct. In the second correction, we rearranged the first part of the sentence to end with the word objectives, which names the list. Either works. I suggest that the second would be better if you want to emphasize the list.

Sometimes, to make the colon work, writers will finish the introductory half of the sentence with “the following”; this works because the list is named. However, at times, using the phrase is less efficient than rearranging the sentence. Usually, the solution is the first of the two above.

Another problem I often see with colons (and even without colons) involves using the word “including”.

There are three types of tourist needs as per experience including: basic, social, and intellectual components.

This sentence doesn’t work for several reasons. You’ll note that it begins with an expletive (there are). In addition, we have a Latin phrase (as per), and then we have a colon, which is used incorrectly. Finally, we have that word, including. Including, by definition, should introduce an incomplete list. If the list is complete, you don’t want to use it. So we can revise the sentence several different ways, depending in part on what the author meant. (It’s not only not correct, it is not concise.) Both possible revisions do not include “including”.

Tourists have three needs: basic needs, social needs, and intellectual needs.

The experiences a tourist has will have three components: basic, social, and intellectual.

 
Something to note here. These sentences do not mean the same thing. An editor will not know what the author has in mind. Making a sentence concise and correct also indicates to an author when an idea is unclear. If the editor got the wrong message, then the author should know where to begin work when revising.

Keep it Simple (Stupid)

Circumlocution: a hard word for a simple concept. It literally means talk around. You know the kind of writing (and talking) I mean: Use as many words as possible to say something.

The odd thing is that most people seem to think that the more words they use, and the more hard words they use, the smarter they sound. I see one problem with that. The more words you use, the less likely you are to communicate clearly. We’re back to TLDR (too long, didn’t read). Of course, if you don’t want people to read what you wrote, or understand what you wrote, fine. Go ahead. But don’t be surprised if you get half a dozen phone calls and emails asking for the short version.

Again, examples make this easier to understand.

Is capable of affecting

Has the ability to

In this day and age

Until such time as you can

Are of the same opinion

To the fullest possible extent

Maintain a high degree of activity

Over a period on the order of a decade

This is a short list—I could list these all day. Try these instead: can affect, can, now, when you can, agree, fully, remain active, for ten years.

If you are concerned that you will sound uneducated, think about it this way. People only notice writing style when the style interferes with their reading, slows them down, makes it harder for them to get what they need. A simple writing style isn’t simpleminded; it’s easy to read. 

The solution is not so simple. If you can say it in a short word, don’t use a long one. If you can say it in one word, don’t use five. If you can say it in one sentence, don’t use eight. If you can say it in one…

All right, I’m done.

Expletive deleted...

So far, to make writing more concise, we have concluded that Anglo-Saxon is better than Norman-French, that redundancies must go, and that we must unsmother our verbs. That’s a good start, but it isn’t enough. We still need to face passives, circumlocution, and expletives.

Of those three, expletives are the easiest to recognize. They are also the hardest to uproot. Expletive, if you go back to the root, means “filled out”. Basically, an expletive is a grammatical form that we use when we don’t want to put the subject and verb where they are supposed to go. This is easier to understand with examples.

It seems…

There are…

It is…

There appears…

All of those are expletives. Nearly all begin with either “it” or “there” and are followed by what I call linking verbs (any form of to be, seem, appear, and others). The problem is not the expletive structure, or any of the verbs. The problem is how often the structure is used. I know I have read articles where nearly every sentence began “there are”, “it is”, “there is”, “there are”, “it seems”, “there are.” After about three or four sentences, I go to sleep. The grammatical structure itself is ponderous, unfocused, and soporific.

The best way to revise such sentences is to rethink them. Who is doing what to whom?

English is a language that relies heavily on positioning. That is, where a word occurs in a sentence tells you what it does. Generally, whatever is in the subject slot of the sentence is the actor. What is in the verb slot is the action. And what is in the object slot is what the actor acted upon. (We’ll get back to this when we talk about passives.) When you read English, that is the pattern you expect. You expect whatever word is in the subject slot to be the actor and whatever is in the verb slot to be the action. If you, as a writer, do not give the readers what they expect to see, you confuse them.

Now look at the expletives again. In the subject slot, we have two options: there and it. Neither of them is the actor. And in the verb slot, we have something that is not the action. All an expletive does is tell the reader to look for the actor and action somewhere else.

Why bother? Why not simply have the actor first and the action second? Try a few examples to see what I mean.

There are three parts to this report.

It is obvious from the results that…

There appears to be support in this analysis for…

There seems to be some disagreement…

There is reason to question…

Instead of using the expletive form, we can simply say, “This report has three parts”; “The results show…”; “The analysis supports…”; “The results contradict…”; “We can question…”

Do note how much shorter the second set of statements are. 

Now consider how we can really cause ourselves problems by combining an expletive with a smothered verb.

“As a very complex structure, it is dependent on the conditions present…”

“There is an accommodation everyone can all agree upon…”

Now consider these simpler statements:

“This complex structure depends on current conditions…”

“We can all accommodate…”

Most writers, however, especially scientists, have some difficulty making a straightforward statement of fact (in case they are wrong). However, a straightforward statement is easier to understand and respond to. If you have done a decent job of setting up an experiment or model, then the results should be straightforward statements of fact.

The interpretation might not be so straightforward, but that’s another issue.

(A comment here: English is flexible, and that is one of its strengths. We never have a single right answer in editing. And no prohibition in writing is absolute.)