In Contrast vs However
Tom Bolen
after a phrase like "in contrast" in, for example, the sentences:
"The first book was blue. In contrast, however, the second book was red."
Similarly, how about using "but" with "on the other hand" in, for example:
"The first book was blue. But, on the other hand, the second book was red."
Thanks in advance.
Tom
Robert Lieblich
Well, the obvious answer is that you don't need any of them. The first
book was blue. The second book was red." No native speaker of the
language would be confused by this for even a moment.
Okay, you chose a simple example. Still, words of contrast and
transition are grossly overused by writers who lack confidence in what
they're doing. "However" can still be useful on occasion, as,
certainly, can "but," but I think you could probably go your entire life
without needing "in contrast." Piling one of these on top of another is
redundant, not emphatic, and just annoys the reader. Let the substance
of what you're saying emphasize the contrast.
Bob Lieblich
N.Mitchum
-----
> I was wondering if it is redundant, or just more emphatic, to use "however"
> after a phrase like "in contrast" in, for example, the sentences:
>
> "The first book was blue. In contrast, however, the second book was red."
>
> Similarly, how about using "but" with "on the other hand" in, for example:
>
> "The first book was blue. But, on the other hand, the second book was red."
The books' colors don't seem to warrant such heavy-duty verbiage,
though perhaps you chose this merely to demonstrate the
construction in question.
I would write neither "in contrast, however" nor "but, on the other
hand." I might prefer "The first book was blue, the second red."
If I felt it necessary to emphasize the difference in colors, I
might write "The first book was blue whereas the second was red."
----NM
Tom Bolen
In article <36FEB5...@lafn.org>, "N.Mitchum" <aj...@lafn.org> wrote:
>Tom Bolen wrote:
>-----
>> I was wondering if it is redundant, or just more emphatic, to use "however"
>> after a phrase like "in contrast" in, for example, the sentences:
>>
>> "The first book was blue. In contrast, however, the second book was red."
>>
>> Similarly, how about using "but" with "on the other hand" in, for example:
>>
>> "The first book was blue. But, on the other hand, the second book was red."
>>.....
>
>The books' colors don't seem to warrant such heavy-duty verbiage,
>though perhaps you chose this merely to demonstrate the
>construction in question.
In article <36FE95...@erols.com>, lieb...@erols.com wrote:
>
>Well, the obvious answer is that you don't need any of them. The first
>book was blue. The second book was red." No native speaker of the
>language would be confused by this for even a moment.
>Okay, you chose a simple example. Still, words of contrast and
>transition are grossly overused by writers who lack confidence in what
>they're doing. "However" can still be useful on occasion, as,
>certainly, can "but," but I think you could probably go your entire life
>without needing "in contrast." Piling one of these on top of another is
>redundant, not emphatic, and just annoys the reader. Let the substance
>of what you're saying emphasize the contrast.
Yes, I did take a very simple - and, perhaps, too simple example. So, let's
take a more complex one this time:
"The Kennedy Jaguars and the Lincoln Badgers have been arch rivals for years.
The Kennedy Jaguars were great last year, having all the skilled players that
were needed to win the league championship. Their center, Tom Grey, was a H.S.
All-American. Their point guard, Rick Jones, averaged 15 assists, and their
two forwards were good enough to win scholarships to Big Ten schools.
In contrast, the Lincoln Badgers, having very few — if any — skilled players,
were terrible and, thus, finished last in the league. Consequently, the
Badger's new coach, who had previously coached Kennedy, had his job cut out
for him."
Maybe the reader wouldn't be confused if "in contrast" was removed from the
second paragraph. But it seems to me that when it and, by implication, other
emphatic words and phrases are removed from writing - and I've seen many
examples of this - the piece becomes far, less interesting and often even more
difficult to read than one with well placed words of emphasis.
Do either or both of you agree?
Tom
N.Mitchum
-----
> "N.Mitchum" wrote:
> >
> >The books' colors don't seem to warrant such heavy-duty verbiage,
> >though perhaps you chose this merely to demonstrate the
> >construction in question.
>
>
> >Okay, you chose a simple example. Still, words of contrast and
> >transition are grossly overused by writers who lack confidence in what
> >of what you're saying emphasize the contrast.
>
> Yes, I did take a very simple - and, perhaps, too simple example. So, let's
> take a more complex one this time:
>
> "The Kennedy Jaguars and the Lincoln Badgers have been arch rivals for years.
> The Kennedy Jaguars were great last year, having all the skilled players that
> were needed to win the league championship. Their center, Tom Grey, was a H.S.
> All-American. Their point guard, Rick Jones, averaged 15 assists, and their
> two forwards were good enough to win scholarships to Big Ten schools.
>
> In contrast, the Lincoln Badgers, having very few — if any — skilled players,
> were terrible and, thus, finished last in the league. Consequently, the
> Badger's new coach, who had previously coached Kennedy, had his job cut out
> for him."
>
> Maybe the reader wouldn't be confused if "in contrast" was removed from the
> second paragraph. But it seems to me that when it and, by implication, other
> emphatic words and phrases are removed from writing - and I've seen many
> examples of this - the piece becomes far, less interesting and often even more
> difficult to read than one with well placed words of emphasis.
Here the contrast is far weightier and I have no quibble with it.
(But I would not have followed this right away with "consequently
comma": it repeats the form of the opening phrase and even the
first syllable of "contrast.")
----NM
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> Yes, I did take a very simple - and, perhaps, too simple example. So, let's
> take a more complex one this time:
>
> "The Kennedy Jaguars and the Lincoln Badgers have been arch rivals for years.
> The Kennedy Jaguars were great last year, having all the skilled players that
> were needed to win the league championship. Their center, Tom Grey, was a H.S.
> All-American. Their point guard, Rick Jones, averaged 15 assists, and their
> two forwards were good enough to win scholarships to Big Ten schools.
>
> In contrast, the Lincoln Badgers, having very few — if any — skilled players,
> were terrible and, thus, finished last in the league. Consequently, the
> Badger's new coach, who had previously coached Kennedy, had his job cut out
> for him."
>
> Maybe the reader wouldn't be confused if "in contrast" was removed from the
> second paragraph. But it seems to me that when it and, by implication, other
> emphatic words and phrases are removed from writing - and I've seen many
> examples of this - the piece becomes far, less interesting and often even more
> difficult to read than one with well placed words of emphasis.
>
> Do either or both of you agree?
I'd have written the entire passage differently. I would have led off
with the obvious difference between the two schools: "The Kennedy
Jaguars were great last year. The Lincoln Badgers, their arch rivals
for many years, were terrible." Then would come the contrasts: Kennedy
was good because . . . . Lincoln was terrible because . . . . I'd fit
it all into one paragraph.
I suppose that if you retain the structure you have, "In contrast" is as
good as any suitable substitute, like, for example, "On the other hand."
I still prefer to have the contrast grow organically out of the text,
hence my preference for my alternative structure. Nothing wrong with
yours, certainly.
Reasonable people can and do differ.
Bob Lieblich
Tom Bolen
Yes, but thanks for rewriting it anyway. The fact of the matter is that I've
been trying to get away from using too many "howevers", "otohs", "buts", "in
contrasts", and the like. But I haven't been able to, I guess because I have a
tendency to write like I speak.
I'm going to try writing without these words, as you suggested, and see what
happens.
Best regards,
Tom
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>Yes, but thanks for rewriting it anyway. The fact of the matter is that I've
>been trying to get away from using too many "howevers", "otohs", "buts", "in
>contrasts", and the like. But I haven't been able to, I guess because I have a
>
>
>tendency to write like I speak.
>
>I'm going to try writing without these words, as you suggested, and see what
>happens.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Tom
Why are you tbo...@adelphia.net (Tom Bolen) in one posting and
tba...@aol.com (Tom Banks) in two, all three with the same text?
bjg
David McMurray
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:11:11 GMT, tbo...@adelphia.net (Tom Bolen)
> wrote:
[...]
> Why are you tbo...@adelphia.net (Tom Bolen) in one posting and
> tba...@aol.com (Tom Banks) in two, all three with the same text?
Good question, but are you sure of your facts?
I see the first, but one of the "Tom Banks" is at one address and
t'other is at t'other.
--
David
Brian J Goggin
[...]
You're right: it's even more complicated than I thought. There are
three persons in one (anyone got a shamrock?):
tba...@aol.com (Tom Banks)
tbo...@adelphia.net (Tom Banks)
tbo...@adelphia.net (Tom Bolen)
Confusing.
bjg