Is this a very bad writing habit?

[ymu]

It's a good enough, and technically correct way of writing and can be useful for stuff like academic essays where you need to pack as many facts into every sentence as possible, but I think it's pretty bad if you want anything you write to be read by somebody who's not getting paid to do so.

Clearly you are going to use a very different writing style for academic papers than for The Sun or summat, but it's not that big a divide. You certainly aren't going to get extra marks by making it harder for the lecturer to read it - and you risk that they'll miss your meaning altogether if they can't be arsed to reparse all the time.

Obscure writing styles have a pretty bad reputation in science - partly because they don't help to communicate the ideas clearly, but mainly because they're often used to try and make trivial ideas sound important, or make bogus but scientific-sounding excuses for shite methodology.

 

[weltweit]

Anyone help me, I still have problems with apostrophes.

There is motorcycles, motorcycle's and motorcycles' as far as I can tell.

The motorcycles all started their engines (plural)

The motorcycle's front wheel was damaged (something pertaining to the subject word)

But what about motorcycles' how do I use that or do I not use it at all?

 

[chooch]

But what about motorcycles' how do I use that or do I not use it at all?

That's plural possessive. All of the motorcyles had flat tyres. The motorcycles' tyres were flat. I probably wouldn't use it there, because I'm not a big fan of possessives of inaminate objects. But that's because I'm a twat.

In the original sentence, I'd use brackets for the tricky clause. Commas don't separate it enough, for me. It's not bad writing though.

 

[ymu]

Anyone help me, I still have problems with apostrophes.

There is motorcycles, motorcycle's and motorcycles' as far as I can tell.

The motorcycles all started their engines (plural)

The motorcycle's front wheel was damaged (something pertaining to the subject word)

But what about motorcycles' how do I use that or do I not use it at all?

...s plural
...'s singular possessive
...s' plural possessive

It's rare that you'd have something belonging to multiple motorbikes - but the dogs' kennel would be correct if there were at least two dogs who shared said kennel; if there was only one it would be the dog's kennel.

The exception is the possessive "it". Its apostrophe is missing - I have no idea why unless it's purely to avoid ambiguity with it's (it is).

 

[chooch]

...s plural
The exception is the possessive "it". Its apostrophe is missing - I have no idea why

Because it's a pronoun, like 'his' or 'her'

 

[ymu]

Because it's a pronoun, like 'his' or 'her'

But don't they all derive from the same archaic gerund wotsit? The ' in the possessive signifies a missing letter that used to be there, I think.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

So it's your editing skills that need to be sharpened up.

yes, that's what was striking me, the o/p makes sense but you can usually sharpen someone else's prose for good effect.

 

[MikeMcc]

I tend to see a sentence as conveying one idea and a paragraph as a group of related ideas (sort of). So ...

"Squire investigated the stories HIV positive women tell about themselves, and how they conceptualise their romantic life. He drew on popular culture as a resource and how this in turn represents a way of their living with their illness. That gave greater insight into the situation of HIV positive women than is possible through inquiries framed by more conventional ‘coping’ narratives."

I find that clearer because it's not just one idea you're putting across. All in one sentence and i find i've got to go back to the beginning of the sentence to remember what it started off as. And its almost same number of words. Interested on what people think, though.

Damn - beat me to it. That seems easier to read, hence far clearer!

 

[mrs quoad]

I tend to see a sentence as conveying one idea and a paragraph as a group of related ideas (sort of). So ...

"Squire investigated the stories HIV positive women tell about themselves, and how they conceptualise their romantic life. He drew on popular culture as a resource and how this in turn represents a way of their living with their illness. That gave greater insight into the situation of HIV positive women than is possible through inquiries framed by more conventional ‘coping’ narratives."

I find that clearer because it's not just one idea you're putting across. All in one sentence and i find i've got to go back to the beginning of the sentence to remember what it started off as. And its almost same number of words. Interested on what people think, though.

Yep.

I'm with this school of thought.

Having come from the former.

I still tend to write waffly sentences, but try not to. Even if I'm writing for an academic audience I want them to be able to understand my ideas without having to re-read a sentence ten times.

I've re-written my last two assignments from scratch after realising I was going full-blown down the waffly route. For me (and - obv - only for me) it tends to be when I'm trying to sound clever or 'perform' academia instead of just sorting my fucking ideas out and putting them across in clear, concise, well-presented, simple English

e2a: I'm fully aware that most of the people marking my assignments will have twenty, thirty or forty similar assignments to get through. If my ideas are good enough, then IMHO I don't need to coat them in layer upon layer of flowery bullshit. The more readily comprehensible they are, the better. I tend to re-read my assignments with an eye on 'do I need to put it like that, or was I writing that because it sounded clever...?' I'm aware it's a role I actively perform sometimes...

That's something I see as a defect in my own writing, though... Not something I'd necessarily want to project onto others. I know which style of writing I prefer - and it's not because I can't understand the other style. It's just an effing pain in the arse to read someone making a statement about their own stylistic brilliance when I'm tired / lacking in concentration / etc.

Try reading Heidegger at the end of a long day for a blinding (if extreme) example, ha.

 

[mrs quoad]

Hahaha!

Just thought of another way of putting it - the "would my mum understand it" test

Though that's contextualised by my mum, bless

 

[Jorum]

If in doubt I always fall back on "one idea per sentence".
I've noticed sometimes there seems to be a fear of writing short simple sentances.
The style of writing prevalent in modern businesses probably doesn't help as it seems to delight the use of pointlessly elaborate words.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I have been queen of the long waffly sentence in the past. I'm trying to keep my sentences shorter now, and even in academic work it does make it more readable. I've also discovered that it doesn't necessarily lead to more words.

I am however currently loving my semi-colons.

 

[perplexis]

Without reading anything but the OP.
It makes your sentences too difficult to follow, you'll end up writing like an 18th century German philosopher.
It's ok sometimes, but if you find you're trying to insert loads of parenthetical information very frequently you need to address the focus of your sentences and think about separating your concepts up more linearly.
You can get away with it, but it gets tiring to read. It's not "wrong" but it's not always the most elegant way to express yourself.
Caveat: I do it all the time when I'm writing papers. Then my co-authors change it for me.

 

[D]

I am in agreement with perplexis and two sheds.

If you plan to apply for grants/fellowships/etc (and perhaps you already do) to fund your own projects, particularly if the selection committees consist of a people from a variety of fields/contexts, you will definitely want to simplify your sentences. Why not get into the habit of writing as succinctly and elegantly as possible?

I think very often academics write papers for publication - at least initially - as they would for presentation at a conference. In the second instance you can get away with far more verbose sentences than the first.

***

weltweit -

the motorcycles' engines roared as the racers waited at the starting line

or something

it's the same as "motorcycle's" but plural ... and, frankly, a form fairly infrequently used, I should imagine, when it comes to motorcycles