Company that teaches Business Etiquette

[artk2002]

Are we getting too bogged down on the subject of the language of the article as opposed to its content?

It's not usually rude to be grammatically incorrect.

No, it's not rude to be grammatically incorrect.  But... someone who makes claims about needing to improve formality in business, via better business etiquette, can't afford to be quoted using casual speech.  Based on that quote alone, I would probably not do business with her.  The issue really isn't one of rudeness by the speaker, it's an issue of a poor professional presentation.

[Hanna]

The first sentence is poorly written

Business communication has become way too casual, says Nancy Gorczynski.

But it is not a quote, which indicates it is the staff writer's own choice of words.  Because we can establish from that alone that this article is poorly written I am reluctant to cast blame upon the woman being interviewed.  A writer that is that sloppy with their introductory sentence may not be very precise with recording a conversation.  The quotes after that are only partial sentences, and could very well be misquotes.

I am more interested in the conundrum that this would pose for the woman being interviewed.  She likely didn't get a chance to review the article before it was published.  She cannot now go back and publicly complain about being the subject of a poorly written article.  That would defeat her purpose by making her seem rude and ungrateful.  I would therefore most certainly be willing to give her the benefit of doubt if I were a potential customer.  If it were paid advertising I would feel differently.

[jaxsue]

OP here. The newspaper from which the article came is known for being poorly written. Unlike the NYT, across the Hudson, it's a small paper and they put next to no money into its production. Trust me, I've contacted the paper regarding mistakes, and they just don't care. This is more and more the case as publications slowly die. 

[Sirius]

I think the business owner's point about researching other cultures you're going to do business with is a very good idea.  Learning things like which hand to extend when shaking hands, or which spoon to eat with first, or even whether or not men deal with women in business in other cultures is always a good idea.  It's also a good idea to find out where your skirt should hit your calf or your ankle if you're a woman and if there's a color you shouldn't wear because it denotes something in another culture that you wouldn't care to be known as, e.g. never wear hot pink when dealing with Martians because that means you're unmarried and looking for a spouse, that type of thing. (I made that last part up, but if there's a culture out there that considers hot pink to be the "spouse hunting" color, I apologize.)

[onikenbai]

I think this is the problem, but I stink at grammar so maybe not. I dont know any of the correct grammatical terms, but when you have a sentence that looks like this: "blah blah blah a, b, and c," you should be able to read the sentence as "blah blah blah a, blah blah blah b, and blah blah blah c" without having to insert any words.

Example: I like to go rollerblading, to the movies, and hanging out with my friends. (bad - is the blah blah I like to go or I like to?)
            I like to go rollerblading, go to the movies, and hang out with my friends. (okay - here the blah blah blah is "I like to")
            I like to go rollerblading, to the movies, and out dancing with my friends. (okay - here the blah blah blah is "I like to go")

The phrase you're looking for is faulty parallelism.  Whatever form you start with should be carried through to the end.  In your examples the first sentence reads "to go..., (to omitted, but that's ok) go... and -ing"  They don't match.  It should be "to hang".  The second sentence isn't too bad but it still isn't parallel because it has to go-, to go, -ing.  The third sentence is the best because the full sentence with all the little omitted words reads "I like to go rollerblading, [to go] to the movies, and [to go] out dancing with my friends"  It maintains the best parallelism from start to finish.

[Virg]

Hanna wrote:

"The first sentence is poorly written..."

I have no problem with the first sentence, grammatically.  There's a certain irony in it because it's a casual phrase used to discuss casual phrasing, but it's constructed properly and the irony makes a pretty good lead-in.  It's the two direct quotes that I pointed out that are badly made, and as I said one would hope that someone who's trying to make a living educating others about the subtleties of communications would make more of an attempt to communicate correctly.

"I am more interested in the conundrum that this would pose for the woman being interviewed.  She likely didn't get a chance to review the article before it was published.  She cannot now go back and publicly complain about being the subject of a poorly written article.  That would defeat her purpose by making her seem rude and ungrateful.  I would therefore most certainly be willing to give her the benefit of doubt if I were a potential customer.  If it were paid advertising I would feel differently."

I didn't find the article in general to be poorly written, and as to her own words, they're her stock in trade.  I'd personally have asked to review the article if I'd been the subject and after publication she could certainly complain that she was misquoted if that was the case.  Considering her business I'd expect her to correct such errors, and I certainly wouldn't consider her rude for correcting misquotes.  More to the point, though, as I read the article I found that there are six quotes attributed directly to Ms. Gorczynski and four of them are grammatically incorrect.  I find it therefore unlikely that all these errors are attributable to sloppy quoting by Carol Fletcher (the writer).

Virg

[Hanna]

Partial quotes just don't mean much to me.

[Virg]

Hanna wrote:

"Partial quotes just don't mean much to me."

From the article:

"It certainly lets people know you're interested, paying attention and that you care," she said. "You are secretly building your character through someone else's eyes."

That's a complete quote, directly attributed.  I addressed the first sentence, and the use of "secretly" in the second is nonsensical.  I'm going to say QED on the basis of this.

Virg

[Hanna]

Given the comma at the end of the first part, it doesn't indicate a full and direct quote to me.  The writer could have removed any portion. 

At any rate, I find it humorous that we are discussing quotes but you don't use the quote feature here on the the forum.

[elephantschild]

Given the comma at the end of the first part, it doesn't indicate a full and direct quote to me.  The writer could have removed any portion. 

At any rate, I find it humorous that we are discussing quotes but you don't use the quote feature here on the the forum.

Wow, really? I work for a newspaper. I've been a copy editor. I've been a reporter. Believe me, that's how you correctly write a complete quote. If you're going to leave something out, you use "..." (And you rarely leave something out.)

I've drummed that into the heads of oodles of reporters over the years.

[Twik]

Hanna wrote:

"Partial quotes just don't mean much to me."

From the article:

"It certainly lets people know you're interested, paying attention and that you care," she said. "You are secretly building your character through someone else's eyes."

That's a complete quote, directly attributed.  I addressed the first sentence, and the use of "secretly" in the second is nonsensical.  I'm going to say QED on the basis of this.

Virg

I've had it put in print, in a professional magazine as follows (paraphrased slightly):

"The International Whoozit Organization is going to take (such-and-such completely idiotic action)," said Ms. Twikslastname. "This will definitely come to pass by next year."

The problem? I didn't say any such thing. Now, I believe I know what he *thought* he heard, and put into his notes, but I had a wonderful time trying to fend off people who seriously believed that I said this, and either it was true (and would result in major difficulties for them), or I had no idea what I was talking about (which presented major difficulties for my professional reputation).

So, no, unless the reporter was dealing with an official transcript, I assume even directly quoted statements are at best what the reporter has put together from his/her notes and recollections, not necessarily an accurate reconstruction.

[elephantschild]

So, no, unless the reporter was dealing with an official transcript, I assume even directly quoted statements are at best what the reporter has put together from his/her notes and recollections, not necessarily an accurate reconstruction.

Any reporter worth his or her salt darned well better be sure that what's been "put together from his/her notes and recollections" is "an accurate reconstruction." I'm sorry that happened to you, Twik.

Standards seem to be getting so lax. I tend to believe it's because most newspaper corporations lately seem to loooove to get rid of all their senior staff, secure in the knowledge that there will always be J-school graduations out there who will settle for barely above minimum wage.

And once they're trained up to an acceptable standard, they'll get dumped too. Sigh.

[Twik]

So, no, unless the reporter was dealing with an official transcript, I assume even directly quoted statements are at best what the reporter has put together from his/her notes and recollections, not necessarily an accurate reconstruction.

Any reporter worth his or her salt darned well better be sure that what's been "put together from his/her notes and recollections" is "an accurate reconstruction." I'm sorry that happened to you, Twik.

Standards seem to be getting so lax. I tend to believe it's because most newspaper corporations lately seem to loooove to get rid of all their senior staff, secure in the knowledge that there will always be J-school graduations out there who will settle for barely above minimum wage.

And once they're trained up to an acceptable standard, they'll get dumped too. Sigh.

I don't want to pick on reporters - it's a hard job, and most of them do it well. But I wouldn't complain about someone's grammar, or assume they weren't proficient, unless I knew it came directly from them, rather than through the intermediary of a second person (reporter) and likely third or fourth as well (typesetters, editors, etc.).

I remember a reporter interviewing my family when I was a kid for a piece on local pets. Our dog Paddy, a Welsh Corgi, appeared in print as Spot, the Gorgi.

[Virg]

Hanna wrote:

"At any rate, I find it humorous that we are discussing quotes but you don't use the quote feature here on the the forum."

There is a certain irony there, but I beg indulgence for my browser.  The font and size in which quotes render are a bit hard for me to read, so it makes writing my responses a bit easier on my crummy eyes.

Twik wrote:

"Oh, you can just ignore that Virg character.  Even my dog Spot doesn't pay him any mind."

I'm shocked that you'd say such a thing!  Aghast, I tell you!

 

Virg

[Hanna]

Virg: that made me lol!