Well, as it happens, I do have a punctuation suggestion! Well, a few, actually.
Let’s look at this sentence:
A raid on a lawyer’s office doesn’t happen every day; it means that multiple government officials, and a federal judge, had reason to believe they’d find evidence of a crime there and that they didn’t trust the lawyer not to destroy that evidence.
1. The first thing I see is the brilliant use of every day (two words). I just submitted an article to a speakers e-zine about the differences between every day and everyday (one word).
2. The second thing I see is the semicolon. Does this use follow what I believe about semicolons: that each “side” of the semicolon must be a complete sentence. (The way I think of this concept in my mind is as an old-fashioned teeter totter with each side evenly balanced.) The first part is definitely a full sentence. What about the material to follow? Can I decide when I get to it if this is a correct use of a semicolon? No. (But I am hopeful!) So, I am going to hold that decision in abeyance until I decide whether or not the material following the semicolon is a complete sentence. Is it?
3. Is this a complete sentence?
It means that multiple government officials, and a federal judge, had reason to believe they’d find evidence of a crime there and that they didn’t trust the lawyer not to destroy that evidence.
I don’t like it. At first blush, I don’t like it. It really has a colon “feel,” as opposed to a semicolon, actually, because colons are used to explain and elaborate, and also as a substitute for the word “namely” or the phrase “that is to say.”
4. The next thing I notice is the “multiple government officials, and a federal judge, had reason to believe” part. “Officials” is plural and “had” matches and the plural pronoun “they” is correct, so that’s okay. But why those commas?
What’s better? No commas? Yes, no commas is better. BUT! You know what’s really better? Dashes! Yes! Let’s try dashes!
it means that multiple government officials—and a federal judge—had reason to believe they’d find evidence of a crime there and that they didn’t trust the lawyer not to destroy that evidence.
Wow! I’m impressed. Yes, those dashes are dandy. It pushes air out at “and” and provides a breath at both ends.
5. Now, let’s look at this last bit:
had reason to believe they’d find evidence of a crime there and that they didn’t trust the lawyer not to destroy that evidence.
“Evidence” and “crime”…one crime.
“They” is repeated.
“The lawyer”…singular.
How about:
it means that multiple government officials—and a federal judge— believed that they’d find evidence of a crime there and they didn’t trust the lawyer not to destroy that evidence.
6. Better. But that last bit is bothering me. How about
…they didn’t trust the lawyer not to destroy the evidence
Does that feel excessive?
Or how about this:
evidence of a crime there and that the lawyer might try to destroy that evidence.
I like that. So, here it is:
A raid on a lawyer’s office doesn’t happen every day; it means that multiple government officials—and a federal judge— believed that they’d find evidence of a crime there and that the lawyer involved might try to destroy that evidence.
Now, let’s circle back to the semicolon? Is the reworked second part a full sentence? I don’t like it as a full sentence. It’s the “it” that’s bothering me. It bothers me. How to work around the issue? How about this, New York Times editorial board:
A raid on a lawyer’s office doesn’t happen every day. A raid on a lawyers office happens only when multiple government officials—and a federal judge— believed that they’d find evidence of a crime there and that the lawyer involved might try to destroy that evidence.
Is this true? (It’s the “multiple” that’s disruptive.) It’s much more declarative, but maybe can’t be checked or maybe even known. Anyway, is there anything else I can do?
An F.B.I. raid on a lawyer’s office doesn’t happen every day; in this specific situation, it meant that multiple government officials—and a federal judge— believed that they’d find evidence of a crime at the lawyer’s office, which they further believed might be destroyed by that lawyer.
Do you like “meant” (past) better than “means” (present) when paired with “believed.”
I think I do.
Here’s how I’d write it:
An FBI raid on a lawyer’s office doesn’t happen every day: in this specific situation, it meant that a bunch of government officials—and a federal judge— believed that there was evidence of criminal activity at the lawyer’s office, evidence they further believed might be destroyed by that lawyer unless they acted immediately.
Recent Comments