Editing help request

[Ela]

I need some input on an article I am trying to edit. The author keeps using the construction "had had" to indicate things that happened in the past. Would you delete or keep "had had"? (Any other editing suggestions gratefully accepted.)

Just as background, she is trying to show what had happened prior to being called for assistance.

Exhibit A:

She had had her first baby 6 weeks prior to her contacting me. Six years before, that she had had surgery on her right breast due to cancer. One fourth of the breast had been removed and afterwards she had undergone radiation therapy. During the surgery the nipple had been repositioned, therefore the nerves and ducts had been cut. Four years later a malignant tumor had been detected again, this time in her left breast, and unfortunately she had had a full mastectomy (the whole breast had been removed). This mother found herself pregnant with her now six week old daughter about one year after this second surgery.

The "had had" construction grates on me after awhile, but maybe it's correct usage in this case. I am no editing expert.

[Brinestone]

Looks fine to me. It is odd looking, but the construction is fine. It's just the past perfect construction when the main verb is had. There's really no way to avoid the construction unless you want to change the main verb (she had given birth to her first baby, had undergone surgery, etc.), but I see no real reason to do that.

[Jonathon]

The past perfect is used for events in the remote past (a time before the past events being talked about), so it's correct for most if not all of that passage. The problem here is that the author keeps using it with the verb "have" (have a baby, have surgery), so it starts to sound really repetitious. But you already knew that.

Here's how I'd edit it:

She had her first baby 6 weeks prior to contacting me. Six years before that, she had had surgery on her right breast due to cancer. One fourth of the breast had been removed, and afterwards she had undergone radiation therapy. During the surgery the nipple had been repositioned, so the nerves and ducts had been cut. Four years later a malignant tumor had been detected again, this time in her left breast, and unfortunately she had had a full mastectomy (the whole breast had been removed). This mother found herself pregnant with her now-six-week-old daughter about one year after this second surgery.

I changed the first one to a simple past because it's roughly the same time frame as the frame of reference (contacting the doctor). I left it in past perfect where it's refering to events that are further in the past (the surgeries and radiation treatment). I also made a few changes to punctuation and one or two small wording changes.

[Ela]

I like your changes, Jon. I used them.

 

[Icarus]

Are contractions out of the question?

"She'd had . . . "

[Ela]

Well, they are not out of the question, but I'd like to keep it simple and stick with her wording as much as possible. I am pretty sure English is not her first language, so some of her sentence structures are a little awkward. I get the feeling that she is translating word for word from her own language.

[Icarus]

I would say the contractions stick closer to her original wording than any changes, since saying "she'd had" means "she had had."

[/2¢]

[Ela]

Yeah, you're probably right. I liked the way Jon changed it, though, so I went with that.

[pooka]

I think contractions like "she'd" are a little more colloquial.  But so is the use of "had" for any kind of medical procedure.  So I don't know how clinical they want this to sound.  

[Tante Shvester]

Who has read Jasper Fforde's Well of Lost Plots?  This bit was absolutely inspired:

'Good. Item seven. The had had and that that problem. Lady Cavendish, weren't you working on this?'

Lady Cavendish stood up and gathered her thoughts. . . . 'It's mostly an unlicensed usage problem. At the last count David Copperfield alone had had had had sixty-three times, all but ten unapproved. Pilgrim's Progress may also be a problem owing to its had had / that that ratio.'

'So what's the problem in Progress?'

'That that had that that ten times but had had had had only thrice. Increased had had usage had had to be overlooked but not if the number exceeds that that that usage.'

'Hmm,' said the Bellman. 'I thought had had had had TGC's approval for use in Dickens? What's the problem?'

'Take the first had had and that that in the book by way of example,' explained Lady Cavendish. 'You would have thought that that first had had had had good occasion to be seen as had, had you not? Had had had approval but had had had not; equally it is true to say that that that that had had approval but that that other that that had not.'

'So the problem with that other that that was that--?

'That that other--other that that had had approval.'

'Okay,' said the Bellman, whose head was in danger of falling apart like a chocolate orange, 'let me get this straight: David Copperfield, unlike Pilgrim's Progress, which had had had, had had had had. Had had had had TGC's approval?'

There was a very long pause.

'Right,' said the Bellman with a sigh.

[Sheila]

Should I [sic] British spellings if the audience is American?

[Jonathon]

I'd say no. I think it's best to use it for real errors, not variant spellings.

[Sheila]

Thanks. That's what I said.  

[goofy]

I gotta disagree with Jonathan again. The past perfect is used for a past action that is completed before another past action or past point. It is not about the remote past - I could use it for yesterday (by 11 o'clock last night, he had returned home.) What's important is that there is another past action or past point more recent than the past perfect action.

Every sentence in this passage is in the past perfect except the last one. I don't think this is necessary, since there is no past action or past point for most of the passage to be compared to. I would change it all to the simple past except for "Six years before that, she had had surgery on her right breast due to cancer." In this sentence there is a past point that occurs after the past perfect verb.

She had her first baby 6 weeks prior to contacting me. Six years before that, she had had surgery on her right breast due to cancer. One fourth of the breast was removed, and afterwards she underwent radiation therapy. During the surgery the nipple was repositioned, so the nerves and ducts were cut. Four years later a malignant tumor was detected again, this time in her left breast, and unfortunately she had a full mastectomy (the whole breast was removed). This mother found herself pregnant with her now-six-week-old daughter about one year after this second surgery.

[Sheila]

The remote past, like two years ago?

[Jonathon]

Though in my defense, I did define "remote past" as "a time before the past events being talked about," which is essentially how you defined the past perfect, goofy. And actually, I do like your changes better. I'm really not sure why I kept so much of it in the perfect.

[goofy]

Though in my defense, I did define "remote past" as "a time before the past events being talked about," which is essentially how you defined the past perfect, goofy.

Yes you did, that's true. I must be reacting to ESL students who think that the past perfect should be used for talking about say, dinosaurs.

[Ela]

I gotta disagree with Jonathan again. The past perfect is used for a past action that is completed before another past action or past point. It is not about the remote past - I could use it for yesterday (by 11 o'clock last night, he had returned home.) What's important is that there is another past action or past point more recent than the past perfect action.

Every sentence in this passage is in the past perfect except the last one. I don't think this is necessary, since there is no past action or past point for most of the passage to be compared to. I would change it all to the simple past except for "Six years before that, she had had surgery on her right breast due to cancer." In this sentence there is a past point that occurs after the past perfect verb.

She had her first baby 6 weeks prior to contacting me. Six years before that, she had had surgery on her right breast due to cancer. One fourth of the breast was removed, and afterwards she underwent radiation therapy. During the surgery the nipple was repositioned, so the nerves and ducts were cut. Four years later a malignant tumor was detected again, this time in her left breast, and unfortunately she had a full mastectomy (the whole breast was removed). This mother found herself pregnant with her now-six-week-old daughter about one year after this second surgery.

Too late. The article has already been published.

Wouldn't you know I got accosted for not consulting with an Italian speaker on some of the English phrasings that the article author used. Apparently, her English translation of some of the Italian expressions she used were inexact. I personally don't think it detracted from the article. YMMV.

[Brinestone]

I'm editing a paper on international human rights. It keeps referring to a country as "a state party of ICESCR." At first, I thought it should be "party to," but then I came across a quote taken directly from the ICESCR, and it says, "States parties to ICESCR." So that confirms the "of vs. to" question, but it also seems to indicate that I've completely been parsing the phrase incorrectly all these years.

I thought it was states [that are] party to X, with party being an adjective. But if States parties is correct, then I have no idea what is going on. Do we have any other constructions like that in English? Is the phrase incorrect? Is there some sort of weird legalese going on?

[Ela]

Did you ever figure it out? Cause I got confused just reading what you were trying to figure out.    

[Brinestone]

Not really.

[Annie Subjunctive]

We propose that the underlying issue behind technology integration is the concept of agentive valuation, the process by which goal-oriented agents willfully react to perceived benefits and threats within their environments.

I've gotten to the point with my paper that my supervisor is becoming really nitpicky during our reviews, which is a good thing because it means the big stuff is all taken care of. He told me to make sure the comma in this sentence is correct. I think it is - would a colon or em dash be more appropriate? Or is the comma?

[rivka]

The comma is certainly correct; I personally would prefer a colon.

[Neutros the Radioactive Dragon]

What rivka said.

[Jonathon]

I prefer the comma, and I actually dislike the colon there—I think it chops it up too much. Personally, I think ". . . agentive evaluation, that is, the process . . ." would work very well.