My Week Proofreading Policy Drafts
Прочитайте цю статтю вголос
Увімкніть мікрофон і читайте у своєму темпі. Слова підсвічуються на ходу, і ніхто не зупиняє вас через одну помилку.
Ваш звук не потрапляє до MovaReader: розпізнає його ваш браузер. Політикою конфіденційності
Увійдіть, щоб ця сесія збереглася в історії читання.
My Week Proofreading Policy Drafts
Monday at a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit: I flagged a pronoun chain that collapsed after the third reference. The policy draft named the funding gap, and it reappeared without warning in a footnote. Eva asked me to verify that these demonstratives still pointed to the same noun phrase.
Such requests are routine, yet that one arrived minutes before the committee vote. By evening I understood why Sergio prefers former and latter only when two items stay in close proximity. Laila warned that those substitutions with one and ones can fail when antecedents remain plural.
A shared principle emerged: advanced cohesion devices bind paragraphs only when antecedents stay explicit. In a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, editors often ask whether a pronoun chain remains transparent after the third reference. This is what the policy team feared most:
