There is a FB group, run by my old English teacher, that I joined purely in a spirit of bringing balance to the largely prescriptivist views there. Here's a recent post and my subsequent comment.

Post:

quote:

"One, a barley field, was abandoned in 1961. The other, former grassland, was left alone in 1996." Bad writing - using two different phrases for the same thing at best draws unnecessary attention to the writer's struggles and at worst causes confusion. There's always a neater way of solving the problem.

My comment:

quote:

I don't know the writer's intent but to me "abandoned" and "left alone" have distinctly different connotations. The former implies that the abandonment is for ever, the latter that it's temporary. Possibly not the intent but certainly how I would use the words.

Two questions really. How do you feel about the OP's opinion? Do you agree with my assessment?

I concur. Please send me the FB group.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
I concur. Please send me the FB group.

I can if you really want it but I give you fair warning, it's almost exclusively personal friends and former students of my old teacher.

Well then I withdraw my request.

I agree, Bob. They are definitely different connotations, in the way you describe. It is so interesting to me when people are so critical over language, with no good rationale.

It seems the error is in the original article that was being quoted. I am told that both were referring to areas of land that had originally been farmland but had been become overgrown and were now woodland. I wouldn't use "left alone" there I'd use abandoned. However I think that the OP's suggestion that there is something wrong with varying the phrase is definitely not right. In this instance it may not be perfectly chosen but as a principle it's perfectly sound.

I would consider the term, "rewilded" for land intentionally left alone.

It is sometimes hard to write without being redundant, and yet at the same time using precise synonyms. I usually resort to being redundant, while editors will change it their way.

Speaking of which: I recently wrote an article that the editor "retitled" so that it would seem more interesting. I didn't like the new title, but oh well. So - today I received an email from a reader who said, "I honestly didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this AJN article - starting with the historically blind title."

Writers just have to have thick skin.

The FB comment criticizes the style. It's all about context, you can't just isolate those two sentences to make that point. Repetition of sentence structure is not necessarily made to highlight the changed element. It's usually done to highlight a conclusion or comment that follows.

Agreed that it is all about context. And that was the problem with the AJN reader's criticism (above) of the article's title.