[sabbatic13]

Rules like these aren't really good guide to style though. They are the sort of guidelines suited to curing teenagers of bad habits. That's the problem I have with articles like these. They aren't adult discussions of language; they do not teach effective writing, and do not promote an understanding of language. One should ideally outgrow such pedagogy by one's second year of college.

[sliverstorm]

Ideally. But when I took my cross-discipline gen-ed requirements, I was pretty amazed how little & how low-quality writing was expected of at least some of the humanities first & second years. Not much chance for growth when assigning a two-page paper is enough to provoke upset.

[bane]

I also noticed this in my undergrad. In my second semester gen English, a 5 page minimally researched paper was enough to get people pretty upset, while in my hard science courses, it wasn't uncommon to turn in 20-30 pages every couple weeks.

[Perseids]

Just as a clarification: Why do they ask for a minimum word count (or space count for that matter) and not for a minimum quality of the content. If students can accomplish the same with less words, then so be it.

[rnprdk]

I once had a professor who assigned regular essays with a maximum length of one properly formatted page. He was quite demanding, and I think I probably learned more about writing from those than most other multi-page assignments. He was also probably the most brilliant professor I'd had.

[Argorak]

I understood that as a temporary constraint, not as a rule. More like "you used this style a lot during the last assignment, this time, try something different". Working under temporary constraints does promote learning different aspects of a skill.

[cgh]

The Economist Style Guide disagrees:

http://www.economist.com/style-guide/unnecessary-words

[bane]

The key is to learn to write well before becoming a staff writer at the Economist. These guidelines are fine, but all of these nonos have good uses when used appropriately. Some of these guidelines even create imprecision or run counter to general usage.

My father (an ex-English teacher) used to always say something like "concision is rarely wrong, unless it ruins precision."

[joesmo]

In this case, the rule is just not to use the word "very." I can't think of a single context where "very" doesn't degrade from the semantics and syntax of a sentence. I think this rule is appropriate to any and every style.

[lesterbuck]

Oh, please, then you should broaden your thought process. Sure, "very" is overused/misused. But there are all sorts of places where it is the perfect word, especially when playing like you are talking to a child:

"And when she was bad, she was very, very bad."

Let's all agree that using "malicious" or "malevolent" would "degrade the semantics and syntax" of the sentence.

The number of absolute statements you can make about the English language is very close to the null set.

[Crito]

"Now having a night, a day, and still another night following before me in New Bedford, ere I could embark for my destined port, it became a matter of concernment where I was to eat and sleep meanwhile. It was a very dubious-looking, nay, a very dark and dismal night, bitingly cold and cheerless. I knew no one in the place. With anxious grapnels I had sounded my pocket, and only brought up a few pieces of silver,—So, wherever you go, Ishmael, said I to myself, as I stood in the middle of a dreary street shouldering my bag, and comparing the gloom towards the north with the darkness towards the south—wherever in your wisdom you may conclude to lodge for the night, my dear Ishmael, be sure to inquire the price, and don't be too particular."

Or perhaps more appropriately:

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either, and modern literature a complete impossibility!"

[rnprdk]

"Very" is a fine word. There's nothing about it that inherently "degrades semantics and syntax." In fact, I think that's probably a meaningless statement. How could it possibly degrade syntax?

It can also be used quite stylishly. Most words can.

[dllthomas]

I don't know what it means to "degrade from the semantics and syntax of a sentence".

[joesmo]

It makes for shitty writing.

[dllthomas]

That's a much more coherent claim, if subjective. I agree with the weak claim ("it is usually best to drop the very and possibly replace the word it modified"). I disagree with the strong claim ("it is always best ...").

[odonnellryan]

You've just used it, in context, effectively!

[suchow]

No. Joesmo mentioned it, but did not use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

[odonnellryan]

You're right.

[sdegutis]

But what about "thusly"? I'm pretty sure that should never be used.

[dllthomas]

It can, on occasion, be used thusly.