a sentence

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

minimus - 07 Jan 2009 13:20 GMT

People,

The pharagraph below will appear on a web questionnaire just before a
question appears.

I have the following requests:

1. It is important that at a first glance the respondent understands what
this pharagraph says.
When you read it, do you think that you have an idea what is going on?

2. Do you have any suggestions to improve?

3. Do you think it is better to start the second sentence with
"Some other employees make" instead of
"On the other hand, some employees"

4. Do you think it is better to say "immediate" instead of "instant"?

Many employees make an instant transition from full-time work to full-time
retirement by leaving their full-time work the next day for full retirement
at some age. On the other hand, some employees make a gradual transition
from full-time work to full-time retirement by progressively reducing their
working time and workload over a period before full-retirement.

Reply to this Message

Glenn Knickerbocker - 07 Jan 2009 15:44 GMT

>retirement by leaving their full-time work the next day for full retirement
>at some age.

"Next" doesn't make sense because there's nothing to compare it to. You
could say "leaving their full-time work one day for full retirement the
next" or "leaving their full-time work at some age for full retirement
the next day." I'd choose the former because days and ages don't
harmonize too well.

>working time

"Working hours" or "work hours" would be more usual.

"It's not the size of the boat, it's Matt McIrvin" -- Joe
¬R / http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/ny2001.html / Manfre

Reply to this Message

mm - 07 Jan 2009 22:20 GMT

>People,
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>this pharagraph says.
>When you read it, do you think that you have an idea what is going on?

Yes.

>2. Do you have any suggestions to improve?
>
>3. Do you think it is better to start the second sentence with
>"Some other employees make" instead of
>"On the other hand, some employees"

Either is fine. I suppose the first one has the advantage of being
three words shorter and still conveying everything the other one does.
And is probably better without the stock phrase otoh, and because it
is less common. I like the first.

>4. Do you think it is better to say "immediate" instead of "instant"?
>
>Many employees make an instant transition from full-time work to full-time
>retirement by leaving their full-time work the next day for full retirement

What Glenn said. Plus, if they leave work at 5 and are not in
retirement until the next day, being the literalist I am, or even if I
wasn't, I don't think that is instant or immediate. Personally, I've
always thought that one is retired either the moment he leaves work
for the last time, or when he gets into his car, if he drives, or when
he gets off the bus or subway, if he takes public transportion.
(That's if he's going home from work. If he's going elsewhere, it's
like the car, when he gets on the bus or subway. With a car, he now
has time to stop and do something, even if he doesn't.) Most of this
is irrelevant to your quesiton, but I can't stop myself.

FTR instant means something quicker than immediate. Instant soup is
not really instant. Instant oatmeal is not instant. Instant to me
means under a second, and it takes longer than that to pour in the
water, and longer to stir it. Not that I ojbect much to them using
those names.

>at some age.

"At some age" sounds awkward to me, and it's unnecessary here because
people can only retire at some age. Even if they die, they have an
age, and they can't retire when they're a fetus, but even then they
have an age. Whenever they have no age, they can't retire. :-)

>On the other hand, some employees make a gradual transition
>from full-time work to full-time retirement by progressively reducing their
>working time and workload over a period before full-retirement.

Progressively and "over a period" mean pretty much the same thing, but
somehow it doesn't bother me. For the record, you could omit either
one, but otoh, maybe it's ok to say things twice. I tell my
girlfriend the same thing 10 times and it still takes 11 until she
gets it. What do others here say?

Signature

Posters should say where they live, and for which
area they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 10 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years

Reply to this Message

minimus - 08 Jan 2009 09:39 GMT

Thank you for taking the time to comment on it. Appreciated.
I actually changed it as below. This is shorter and more clear. (and I had
to add the second sentence)
I hope you still get the same meaning with the one of the previous
pharagraphout of it.
(but I will use that sentence in another place, so the comments are not
wasted =))

Many employees go into full retirement after working full time. The age of
their full retirement can differ.
Other employees go into gradual retirement where they reduce their work load
over time before full-retirement.

Reply to this Message

mm - 08 Jan 2009 16:39 GMT

>Thank you for taking the time to comment on it. Appreciated.
>I actually changed it as below. This is shorter and more clear. (and I had
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Other employees go into gradual retirement where they reduce their work load
>over time before full-retirement.

Yes, shorter with all the same information. I like it.

Signature

Posters should say where they live, and for which
area they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 10 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years

Reply to this Message

minimus - 08 Jan 2009 19:57 GMT

> Yes, shorter with all the same information. I like it.

Thank you a lot!

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009

a sentence