'Including' everything but the kitchen sink
Is a workhorse preposition subtly shifting its meaning, the Monitor's language columnist wonders.
Some musings were mused not long ago on a copy-editing listserv I subscribe to on the use of .
If it's meant merely to introduce an example, why does appear so often with the phrase "but not limited to" trailing afterward? And on the other hand, why do some people seem to feel that requires them to detail all the elements of the set they're discussing? This impulse leads to sentences like this: "They have five children, including a set of 5-year-old identical triplet sons and two daughters."
In this case, has the effect of an intensifier: "and even." Several options are under consideration, but the possible lawsuit is the one mentioned specifically.
Statement and elaboration, statement and elaboration: That pattern is one of the building blocks of the explanatory prose that fills the pages of what we used to call the public prints. is a verb, but a number of dictionaries identify as a preposition. Like conjunctions and other prepositions, the humble serves as the mortar.
A writer always struggles to balance comprehensiveness and conciseness. Judicious use of can serve as an expression of the Pareto Principle (vital few, trivial many): It helps a writer call out the one or two most important elements, as in the lawsuit example above, while giving some hint of the broader picture ("range of options").
All Gaul is divided into three parts, Julius Caesar famously wrote, and then he straightforwardly listed them. But today everything has more than three parts, and all of them seem to have names longer and more complicated than Belgae, Aquitani, and Celts. How much explaining can we do?