Kindly edit your writers’ copies thoroughly. Lately, we have found many mistakes in copied edited by you, especially Dr. Alvi’s. Below, I have taken up just one of the articles to discuss a few corrections with you.
Relationship demands commitments and compassion for each other but when foundations creep in it becomes unbearable and hard to tolerate.
In this sentence, I don’t understand the use of the word foundations. For the sentence to make sense, either the word foundations or the phrase creep in needs to be tweaked; like foundations shake or mistrust creeps in or suspicion creeps in. Foundations can’t possibly creep in; I can’t think of a situation where foundations might creep in.
However, a balance should be maintained between relationship and career.Here are some ways to handle your work and relationship as well:
Kindly correct the punctuation mistake. Plus, the second sentence could have been bettered. Something like Here are some ways to achieve that. Readers will have no difficulty understanding what does that refer to. The punctuation mistake in the para above was the absence of space before Here.
Keep your professional and personal lives separate and compartmentalized. Do not mix them. Never discuss your work life with your loved one.
This para contains an objectionable idea: never to discuss work life with your spouse. This will raise most readers’ brows, as spouses usually discuss work matters to let some steam out and marshal their thoughts. That’s one of the things spouses are for: sharing work worries. I’m pretty sure our credibility will suffer when we so pedantically tell our readers such an objectionable idea. Plus, we are using a very strong word here: never. Kindly ask your writers to go easy on strong words like never, unless such words can be justifiably used.
Give frequent calls, visits and gifts to keep the relationship alive and latent.
In Dr Alvi’s copy, I repeatedly come across mistakes in word usage. Here, the word latent has been used so wrongly. I think she wanted to use the antonym of latent, and mistakenly believes latent to mean its opposite. She should have ended the sentence at alive, which is close to being the antonym of latent.
There were other such issues scattered throughout the article, but I’ll stop here.
Kindly discuss this feature with Dr Alvi soon, so that she can minimise such mistakes.