Horses, like dogs, animals can be very noble. This is shown clearly in the article today calls attention (Ricardo Rivera, "horses to help women" Reform , "Justice", August 13, 2010, p. 6). In its wording, Article has-as far as I can see, only 15 errors, which is gain compared to others we've seen. Of these, only four are related to the use of uppercase and lowercase. Seven are in the area of \u200b\u200bpunctuation, and four touch the wrong words, missing or surplus. The positive thing that involves fixed in this way in an article is that it gives us an overview of the importance of clarity in every way. Therefore spelling and syntax and punctuation give or take away this clearly.
Let us first regard to case. At the end of the third paragraph, columnist wrote police capitalized when it is a generic noun, not the proper name of the case law enforcement agencies. Later, however, highlighted with green stripes, see the spelling, and capitalization, P and M of RCMP . Here it is the proper name, or part of the proper name for surely the officer is longer.
In the sixth paragraph, the name of the race, D esign G IGURE is written lowercase. But the names of academic careers, in addition to scientific and humanistic disciplines should be capitalized: "Study G TENS college," but "The g ENETICS has to do with the genesis or origin of things. " Finally, syndrome D own, the disease usually causes mental retardation in humans, by a condition g ENETICS , carry capital in d of Down .
toll now see the wrong words, missing or surplus. In the first paragraph states "[...] and the desire by finish a degree." The prepositions of Castilian dicta have (or give) want of "no" by ". Should have said "[...] and the desire of complete a degree."
In the fifth paragraph read: "[...] and was connected to a tube to eat and thank God and it can feed off her moves his limbs," he said. Simply makes no sense because they lack words. After the word it should appear single or same : "[...] can eat it single [...] "or" [...] can eat it same [...]. " In the seventh paragraph, read "[...] from year 2003. " Although technically there is nothing wrong with writing or saying "since 2003, it is clear that this is a year, and for this we must remove these two words and write" since 2003. " In journalism, even more than in other forms of writing, it should be written as concisely as possible. Even in other -essays, letters, scholarly, official, commercial or business-, conciseness is an unquestionable value.
Finally get to see questions marks. In the first paragraph have the same problem however we saw on 19 November last year in " However it scores . " We read "The Fall of a third floor caused Silvia Castillo Reza remain virtually immobile , however, using the equine, has gradually regained control of his body and the desire to [ sic ] complete a degree. " This however is not a simple clause in one sentence, we used as the score suggests. Is between two sentences and only belongs to the latter. So, he had written with a semicolon [;] before without But : "The fall of a third floor caused Silvia Castillo Reza remain virtually immobile , but using equine therapy gradually has resumed body control and the desire to finish a degree. "
In the fourth paragraph, between Iztapalapa and where , had written a comma because subordinate clause circumstantial place "where Silvia has been shown to improve [...]" is explanatory, gives additional information. Does not specify how Iztapalapa is talking about: there is only one. In the fifth paragraph, after eat , there must be a comma, because what follows is not serialized with the foregoing. The and introduced here a new idea: "When I arrived here I could not move his legs or his arms and was connected to a probe to eat and thank God and took it away [...]. "
In the fifth paragraph, between removed and can must have something it can not be so. As is enjambment is a . As you quote, I assume that the respondent said nothing there, but that does not absolve the writer to use the correct punctuation. He could have used a semicolon [;] or point and followed [.] . No one talks to score! It is the duty of those who drafted using the appropriate signs.
The three remaining errors create a really confusing reading. As we understand the sixth paragraph, it appears that the horse, called Dangerous, brings a smile to the face and said "that his next goal is to return to school to study graphic design career "
Silvia Castillo rode a horse yesterday Creole Dangerous eight years old and with a smile on his face said his next goal is back to school to study graphic design career.
This seems commendable but I doubt that the journalist had wanted to convey this idea. sounds Mr. Ed , a television series of the 60 gringa . Clearly, lack punctuation, but as you say, is the meaning. Even with the comma after the name itself dangerous, it could understand what gringa Series: "Silvia Castillo Dangerous yesterday mounted a horse Creole eight years old and with a smile on face. " It would seem that the subject of said is but the horse, not Mrs. Castillo.
To avoid excessive entanglement , put the correct punctuation:
Silvia Castillo rode yesterday Dangerous Crossbred mare eight years old and with a smile on his face said his next goal is to return to school to study graphic design career.
could enter a comma after face but it would be discretionary. Thus, it might also not be used in this case. But yes, it would clarify the subject of the verb said . This would avoid any possibility of confusion:
Silvia Castillo rode yesterday Dangerous Crossbred mare eight years of old and with a smile on his face the young said his next goal is back to school to study graphic design career.
should also ask where else could be located that smile. Can you smile with their feet, arms or belly? As only smile to the face, the phrase "and with a smile on your face" is pleonastic. In short, the goal of all good writing is precision, conciseness and clarity. And if the horses studied Graphic Design, I'm sure opinarÃan same.
0 comments:
Post a Comment