I will quote myself:
“I will have a lot more to say about that when I get to discussing syntax.”
Now try this:
“A about discussing get have I I lot more say syntax that to to when will.”
That sentence uses all the same words as in the previous sentence I wrote, and it has its own mad common sense: the words are in alphabetical order. But in that order, they mean nothing. That tells you how important word order is. So we’ll try this.
“When I get to discussing syntax, I will have a lot more to say about that.”
The words have been unscrambled, and they now mean something, but I’d still say that sentence is weaker than it should be, mainly because there is no good reason to start it with the clause. The comma adds a hiccup to the sentence that serves no purpose. It makes the reader’s thoughts return to the opening clause, if only for an instant, for no useful reason. The way it was first written is probably the best.
“I will have a lot more to say about that when I get to discussing syntax.”
A well-written sentence has some forward momentum. It shouldn’t make the reader move in two directions at once. It matters whether a clause follows the root of the sentence or comes before it.
Syntax is about more than word order. Let’s break out the thesaurus and see how badly the sample sentence can be mangled without changing the meaning or the structure.
“I will offer supplementary alternatives to provide with regard to the preceding sentence when I further elucidate on matters of syntax.”
Lord help, some people actually do write that way. Sometimes they’re ESL authors and couldn’t know any better. Sometimes they’re reflecting the writing style that their particular field will bear, or writing for an audience that will judge them in terms of what other authors in the field sound like (film studies is notorious for that). What do you do, then, when a mscript sounds like that all the way through?
With that in mind, back to the sample sentence. Syntactic editing isn’t about rewriting. Rather, it’s about reworking sentences so that they sound like what the author would have written on his best day. It’s about tapping into the author’s voice and bringing it out. Or, if the author clearly has no best days, finding one for him. If he wants to be wordier than he has to be, okay, fine. But it’s clear that this particular author has not had the experience of listening to what he actually sounds like. There’s a lot in that sentence that shouldn’t be allowed to stand. “Offer … provide” verges on a tautology. Also, you could make the case that all alternatives are supplementary in some way. He isn’t exactly being redundant, but he comes close. Also, the sample sentence was provided just above, so there’s little point in referring to it as preceding. So let’s try again, for his sake.
“I will offer alternatives to the sample sentence when I further discuss syntax.”
That doesn’t sound anything like what he just wrote, but here, I’ll be telling myself, “That abomination cannot stand.” If I can see a simple way to make an obvious improvement, I always go ahead. But in the back of my mind, meanwhile, I’m asking myself, “Is this guy ESL? Does he sound like that all the time? Is it conceivable he sounded like that on purpose? Do authors with this specialty have a track record for kicking back at CEs?” As to what the house would think, I don’t worry about it – it will know that heavy CEs are what I do and that when a mscript needs one (albeit nothing like this one) the author almost always thanks me for it.
Anyhow, compare that to the sentence that I originally wrote.
“I will have a lot more to say about that when I get to discussing syntax.”
Turns out I could have done better too. I might talk that way but in a sentence that wants to carry some informational gravity, I’m being a little too twangy. So how about …
“I will have more to say about that when I discuss syntax in more depth.”
ADDENDUM: An author who complains “You changed my voice!” is almost always bereft of one. It’s true. An author who says that either has no idea how poor his writing is, and has never been told how poor, or has landed a CE who didn’t respect the mscript and has changed it more than was justifiable. Sometimes respecting the mscript means handling it as gently as possible, sometimes it means rewriting it. Whichever shows the most care for all the work the author has done, I do. It can even mean respecting the mscript more than the author did while he was writing it.