More Business Columnists

• Stacy Sacco: Savor 'Cheese' book's lessons on tackling change
• Randy Burge: Locally grown foods grow in popularity
• Stacy Sacco: Want to develop a situation card?

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

I checked out Microsoft's new Vista operating system recently, and even though it has a wide range of new and exciting features - like Windows Aero for enhanced screen clarity and Windows Flip 3D to see everything you're working on at a glance - it still doesn't offer one item I've always wanted since I bought my first PC.

Namely, a homonym checker.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the spelling and grammar check feature since it's saved me from many embarrassing moments. But I just want more.

It seems that most of my documents, reports and e-mails always include one of those pesky homonym errors - words that have the same pronunciation, but are spelled differently. Spelling and grammar checks just can't filter them out. Even this past week, I prepared a document which upon final proof I discovered had three errant homonyms, including substituting the word by for buy, cite for site, and to for too. None of my misused words were misspelled, so the spelling and grammar check didn't highlight them for me to check for corrections. I'm sure "ewe no watt eye mien."

Of course, if I could have my dream word-processing software I wouldn't stop at just a homonym checker. I'd wish for a program that helps me reduce what author Richard Lanham called "the Lard Factor." In his classic book, "Revising Prose," Lanham says business writers have a tendency to write in an "official voice" to seem more scholarly and, as a result, add more words than needed.

By using his "Paramedic Approach," we can say more with less by eliminating unnecessary prepositions (such as of, from, in, to, with), turn passive phrasing into active phrasing and get to our point more quickly by omitting mindless introductions or unnecessary qualifiers. For example, see how I replace verbal flab with muscle in the following sentences.

Lardy: "It is my belief that in order to convey vigor, an energetic verb is needed in this particular sentence by the writer of the article in question."

Lean: "This sentence needs an energetic verb."

I was able to eliminate 78 percent of the words in the first sentence to convey the same message more directly in the second. This isn't always easy, so I'd love a Lard Check feature that suggests words to eliminate.

The ultimate feature I would add goes well beyond homonyms and words phrases though, and would get at the crux of real communication. That dream feature would be a reality check that assesses the accuracy and validity of statements.

For example, if I received an e-mail from a sales representative boasting about his product's features and benefits, wouldn't it be great to know if he's telling you the truth?

I'd like my computer to highlight any incorrect or questionable information and add some poignant reference notes like, "Facts presented are based on erroneous information and obvious puffery." It could highlight these false statements in a particular color - such as brown, perhaps.

Other reference notes might include such items as:

"Claims are slanted to incite an emotional response."

"Illogical conclusion."

"Supporting documentation not presented."

"Data valid at a 95 percent confidence level with a plus or minus 2 percent variation."

Or better yet, how about, "Who is this guy kidding?" Of course, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't homonym check, lard check or reality check any of my future columns.