[Comma] To be a qualified technical writer, requires you to be trained.

[sunsunmoon]

To be a qualified technical writer, requires you to be trained.
(From http://www.englishsoftware.org/articles/improve-english-writing/introduction-to-technical-english-writing/)


​

This sentence includes a comma. Which rule here applies? 2-b?

 

[Barb_D]

The comma doesn't belong.

Rather ironic, when you think about it.

 

[sunsunmoon]

The comma does not belong to any of the comma rules, so is the sentence incorrect with the comma?

 

[Barb_D]

Though the irony continues. especially with this gem: You need to keep off from poor style of technical writing, which creates technical jargon that is unnecessary or irrelevant and only serves to sow misunderstanding and confusion in the readers.

This was either written by a non-native with a good level of fluency, or, more likely, by a software engineer who wanted to save money on hiring a marketing writer. Hardly a good endorsement for a product that is supposed to make you a better writer!

 

[Rover_KE]

The comma does not belong to any of the comma rules, so is the sentence incorrect with the comma?

Yes.

 

[Barb_D]

The comma incorrectly separates the subject from the verb.

Many people, when faced with a long subject, are tempted to do this. However, it's wrong.

That an advertisement for better writing would make this simple grammatical error [no comma here!] is something that would cause me to shun their product. If they can't write grammatically, will their software make it better? I don't think so!

 

[emsr2d2]

To add insult to injury, "To be good in what you do develop strong skills in the English language and understand modern technical communication."

1) To be good at what you do
2) To be good at what you do, develop...

 

[BobK]

The comma incorrectly separates the subject from the verb.

Many people, when faced with a long subject, are tempted to do this. However, it's wrong.

...

The miscreant comma also serves an unintended purposes. As Barb says, it separates the subject from the verb. And in doing so it underlines that the rather unusual subject ('To be a qualified writer') doesn't work with the verb 'requires' anyway; and besides, the idea of qualification without training is itself rather strange. It is, in almost every conceivable way, a badly constructed sentence.

To think that this sort of gerry-built rubbish is driving down the income and respect due to honest working writers! nfire:

b

 

[Barb_D]

Come on, Bob. Anyone who's an engineer can be a great writer, if they only use this guy's software. What's the point of actually learning the craft of writing? There's a machine out there waiting to do it for you.

 

[emsr2d2]

What's the point of actually learning the craft of writing? There's a machine out there waiting to do it for you.

There's a machine out there waiting to do it badly for you!

 

[Barb_D]

Sadly, that's good enough for many.

 

[BobK]

The even sadder thing is that they don't know or care what makes it bad, and that they can make money from it anyway..

b

 

[Tdol]

Take comfort in knowing that they probably aren't making much or any money from it. :up:

 

[Barb_D]

Maybe they can just hire the companies that provide the ghost-written IELTS essays for them students who won't pass it any other way.

 

[bhaisahab]

"To be a qualified technical writer, requires you to be trained."
With or without the comma, that is a horrible sentence.

 

[emsr2d2]

"To be a qualified technical writer, requires you to be trained."
With or without the comma, that is a horrible sentence.

I agree entirely.

To be a qualified technical writer, you must be trained.
To be a qualified technical writer, it's important to be trained.
To be a qualified technical writer, it's vital that you are trained.

Being a qualified technical writer requires you to be trained.
A job as a qualified technical writer requires you to be trained.

With the last two, I would say that I much prefer "requires that you be trained".