August 26, 2023 - Issue #632 Leafminer
I think this sentence should be rewritten.

"Encourage natural parasites that attack leafminers by not spraying pesticides."

What is the matter with it besides slightly clunky (but not terrible) construction?

Nothing other than being slightly clunky.

Gotcha. I suspect the writer was aiming for brevity. When I rework that sentence to flow better, it gets longer.

Avoiding pesticides may attract natural parasites of leafminers.

Lol, just a rewording of the first and now that I think about it, both are inaccurate.

Not using pesticides doesn't attract anything, but the use of them will kill beneficial parasites. There is a difference.

Unless there is a limiting word count, why not provide a clearer explanation altogether?

@Seedfork , was that your objection? I apologize for not giving your suggestion better thought. I see your point.

Yes, that was my objection.

But it doesn't say "attract", just "encourage". Encouraging anyone (or any insect) to do something doesn't mean it will ever happen. That sentence sounds fine and makes perfect sense to me as it is.

I don't really see an issue with the wording myself. It makes sense to me.

Just saying I had to read it a few times to make sense out of it. I am certainly not the one to go to for proper sentence construction or grammar or spelling.
But this just reads better to me.
"Not spraying pesticides might encourage natural parasites that attack leafminers."
I don't think it is any longer either if that was ever the reason.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation, wishing I hadn't jumped in. I think the word "encourage" is still imprecise and the whole thought is being presented backwards. However, this is not a hill I want to die on, and as a former copy editor, I have learned not to obsess about all of the grammatical, syntactical and punctuation mistakes I see daily. I do value accuracy, but I'm not up for this debate right now.

I often read headlines and captions from the Chicago Tribune and even the Washington Post that I have to shake my head at the wording. I sometimes have to re-read it several times just to get what they're trying to say and have to wonder who approves these. So if major newspapers can get away with it, I say the Garden.org Newsletter can once in awhile too! (Although I didn't have that reaction with this one, it still seems fine to me.)

Our local newspaper fairly regularly has headlines that say the complete opposite of what the article actually says .

I think it's the word encourage that is awkward and as said, imprecise, in the sentence. And agree that it seems like a missed opportunity to explain that pesticides can do more harm than good by indiscriminately killing "bugs", which is not a good thing to do because some of them are eating the others that damage plants. If somebody asks what we think about this, we'll be more ready. LOL!

I don't think I'll die on a hill, but if the view is good, maybe worth considering. If I know it's coming, I'll do my best to croak on a beach.

I think some of us may have too much time on our hands!

There are some who value accuracy and clarity in the written word. If you don't, that's fine. Doesn't make it a frivolous goal for those who do. 🌿

"There are some who value accuracy and clarity in the written word. If you don't, that's fine. Doesn't make it a frivolous goal for those who do."

Assuming you were referring to my response, please note I never said I do not value accuracy and clarity - as an author and editor, I very much do. I'd just rather weed my garden than debate petty semantics. No offense was intended, and I stand by my reply, which, if you note, was offered with a smile. Now, if you'll excuse me, It's a lovely afternoon and my garden is calling.

Okay. You say no offense intended but that's how I interpreted it, smiley face notwithstanding. Let's let this rest.