Our business is finding the right words for your business. Right Words New Zealand Limited writes and edits documents, and organises communications systems for companies, organisations and individuals. http://rightwords.co.nz Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:39:37 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://rightwords.co.nz/images/M_images/logo16_s.jpg http://rightwords.co.nz Our business is finding the right words for your business. Right Words New Zealand Limited writes and edits documents, and organises communications systems for companies, organisations and individuals. http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=9 Like most businesses across the globe, Right Words went quiet with the onset of the global financial crisis in 2007. It was deja vu, in that we lived through the Asian crisis in the late 1990s and remember how work suddenly disappeared then. It took several years for business to recover fully and we expect the pattern to be similar now. In the meantime, though, life has not been quiet. Over the past 18 months, Alison's mother, stepmother, father-in-law and aunt have all passed away, leading Alison and Steve to decide to move north to be near Steve's mother. For the past year, they have focused on selling assets, and renovating and selling the house in Dunedin. In early July, they and cat Alex undertook the four-day journey from Dunedin to Ngunguru, a small town 20 kilometers north of Whangarei. Alison is greatly enjoying her new home in the country and in the warmer climate. With her, Alison brought the Right Words 'office'. Right Words was born in Dunedin in 1987 and had an established presence there, so it may be a surprise to some readers to discover that it is no longer based there, but at the other end of the country. But despite the change in physical location, there is no change in Right Words' services. We still write, edit and proofread as before. And while Alison has been following the sun, Robyn has been planning a climate change of her own - a move from Nelson back to, yes, Dunedin, where the weather is chilly but the people are warm. The more things change, the more they stay the same. News - News Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:17:07 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=25 When are the half quotation marks used. That is 'when is this' type of mark used. That's a good (read curly) one. There is one basic rule that we know of: use single quotes for quotes within quotes. "They said that if he didn't pay them back, they'd 'have his guts for garters'," she said. (The punctuation of that is another issue again, depending on whether you're American or British.) Beyond that, it's a bit messy. Double quotes are still de rigueur for quoted speech but many people prefer single quotes for other uses because single quotes look 'cleaner' on the page. For that and space reasons, many newspapers use single quotes in headlines where they would use double quotes in body text. Our position at Right Words is to use double quotes for things that people have actually said or written and single quotes for referring to words (what is the difference in meaning between 'enable' and 'allow'?) and for colloquialisms and neologisms (he got 'served' (put in his place, if you're not up with that one)). But that's just our practice. There may be learned treatises on the subject that would recommend other ways of using them. Answers - Answers to questions Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:22:00 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=25 Hi: I always wonder which is correct: I want to say: I have a RTCE customer. Spoken, this is a "vowel" sound: arr... But it is a consonant: which is correct: A or AN? Established practice is to go by how you would pronounce the acronym if you were reading it aloud; in this case, you would spell it out, so you would use 'an'. Of course, some acronyms can be pronounced as words, so you would write 'a Nato (or NATO, depending on the style you adopt) exercise' but 'an NGO'. Answers - Answers to questions Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:45:10 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=30 In our last note on grammar, "A grammatical take on the future", we discussed how we indicate that an action is expected to happen in the future. This involved us venturing into the curious world of modality, which is concerned with assertions of probability, possibility, permission, intention, obligation and the like (4.2.2). We discovered that modality is expressed by placing a 'modal auxiliary' or 'modal' immediately before the main verb. There are five modals: 'can' (past tense 'could'), 'must' ('must'), 'shall' ('should'), 'may' ('might') and 'will' ('would'). We saw that modality is also expressed using 'semi-auxiliaries', such as 'be going to' and 'have to', in the same way. Before we can go into more detail about auxiliary verbs, we need to backtrack and look at main verbs – their characteristics and the role they play in a sentence. Because auxiliary verbs (or helping verbs) work alongside main verbs, it is not possible to understand one without understanding the other. In our article "Appearing for sentence", we looked at the elements of a sentence and explained that a sentence is made up of a subject and a predicate. The subject is the person or thing performing the action that the sentence is talking about. Everything else in the sentence is the predicate; for example: I love you madly. In this sentence, I is the subject because I am the person doing the loving, and love you madly is the predicate. If you look at the predicate, you will see that it begins with a verb – in this case, the verb love. All sentences must include a verb, because the verb tells us what action the subject is performing. Many sentences, but not all, contain an object – a person or thing that is being acted upon. In this case, the object is you. And many sentences also contain other information, presented in various types of grammatical phrases – in this case, the word madly is an adverbial phrase. But objects and adverbial phrases are not needed to make a sentence and we won’t cover them here. Main verbs can take five forms, which indicate things like tense and aspect. They are the base, present, present participle, past and past participle (7.2): Base: laugh Present (-s): laughs Present participle (-ing): laughing Past: laughed Past participle (-ed): laughed We saw in previous notes that the present tense uses the base and present forms, and the past tense uses the past form: Simple present: I, you, we and they laugh; he or she laughs Simple past: I, you, he, she, we and they laughed The participle forms are used to indicate aspect, in conjunction with the auxiliary verbs be or have: Progressive aspect: I am laughing Perfect aspect: I have laughed This pattern of forms, in which the past and the past participle is the same, applies to all regular verbs. (Apart from the verb 'to be', which is highly irregular, irregular verbs tend to differ in the past and the past participle; for example, ‘write’ has ‘wrote’ for the past and ‘written’ for the past participle.) The form the verb is in tells us whether it is finite or non-finite. A verb is finite if it displays tense and non-finite if it does not. We know that the present tense uses the base and present forms and the past tense uses the past form. Therefore, the base, present and past forms are all finite forms of the verb. The non-finite forms are the present participle, past participle and infinitive. The infinitive is a form of the verb that does not show person, tense or aspect. It usually takes the form 'to laugh' and 'to write', but the 'to' is not always present. For example, the sentence I must write uses the infinite of the verb 'to write'. Note that the infinitive uses the base form of the verb. The issue of finite and non-finite verbs is crucial because it takes us to the last requirement of a sentence – it must have a finite verb; that is, it must show tense. Phrases that do not contain a finite verb leave us hanging; for example: Writing the book (present participle) Written the book (past participle) To write the book (infinitive) Even by adding a subject, you cannot make a meaningful sentence; for example: You writing the book. Contrast these with the verb forms that are finite: You write the book or Write the book! (base form) She writes the book. (present form) She wrote the book. (past form) In the next note on grammar, we will look more at the role verbs play in sentences and begin to examine the differences between main verbs and auxiliary verbs. Reference: Sidney Greenbaum: The Oxford Reference Grammar, edited by Edmond Weiner, Oxford University Press, 2000. Articles on writing - Grammar and punctuation Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:13:08 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=30 In our last note on grammar, "A grammatical take on time" (http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=30), we looked at how we express time in English. In particular, we focused on how we indicate that an action took place in the past, or is taking place in the present. In this note, we will look at how we indicate that an action is expected to happen in the future. Last time, we explained that, grammatically speaking, we express time using a combination of tense and aspect. Tense refers "to the location of a situation in time"(11.4). In English, one way that this location is expressed is in different forms of the verb, which are known as 'verb inflections'. From a strictly grammatical point of view, in which tense is defined as being shown by a verb inflection, English has only two tenses: the simple present and simple past: Simple present: I, you, we and they laugh; He or she laughs Simple past: I, you, he, she, we and they laughed Aspect, on the other hand, "refers primarily to the way that the time of the situation is regarded rather than its location in time in absolute terms"(11.4). It is expressed by the use of an auxiliary verb ('be' or 'have') with the main verb. In English, there are two aspects: one where the action is considered as continuing (progressive aspect), and one where the action is considered complete (perfect aspect). Progressive aspect: I am laughing Perfect aspect: I have laughed Let's look now at how we indicate future time in English. Unlike the simple present and simple past, future time is considered an aspect of modality and not of tense. Modality is concerned with assertions of probability, possibility, permission, intention, obligation and the like (4.2.2). If we examine sentences that are commonly thought of as being in the future 'tense', we can see why they are actually expressions of modality; for example: Barack Obama will be a popular US president. This statement is an assertion about what the speaker believes, hopes or expects will happen in the future. Statements about the future, unlike those of the past and present, cannot be declarations of fact. They are, therefore, regarded as modal in nature. The example illustrates how we express modality in English: a word called a 'modal auxiliary' (or 'modal') is inserted before the verb. In the example, the modal auxiliary is will, which is placed before the verb be. 'Will' is one of the most common auxiliaries used to indicate the future. The other modals are: 'can' (past tense 'could'), 'must' ('must'), 'shall' ('should') and 'may' ('might'). Some of these also can express the future; for example: You shall do as you're told. I must come today before I forget! As we saw with the Barack Obama example, the modal comes immediately before the verb (will+be). So, in the two sentences above, shall appears before do and must appears before come. (The picture is slightly different with negative sentences and questions, but that's another topic.) Another common way to express the future is with the phrase 'be going to', using the relevant form of the verb 'to be'. Again, it is inserted just before the verb: They are going to broadcast more details about the crisis as they come to hand. The phrase 'be going to' is a semi-auxiliary verb. There are other semi-auxiliary verbs and auxiliary-like verbs that are used to express the future, such as 'be about to', 'be certain to', 'have to' and 'had better'. Auxiliary-like verbs are so named because they behave like auxiliary verbs in indicating time, aspect and modality (11.17). In future notes on grammar, we will look in more detail at verbs and auxiliary verbs. Reference: Sidney Greenbaum: The Oxford Reference Grammar, edited by Edmond Weiner, Oxford University Press, 2000. Articles on writing - Grammar and punctuation Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:05:11 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53&Itemid=30 We were delighted to receive the following email in response to our short piece about the new use of the word 'about' (http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=30). It contains excellent examples of how the word is being used in everyday speech. Hi Alison, Loved your little article about "around" vs "about": http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=30 And here I thought it was just me ... I've been working for a few weeks at a company where they use "around" like it's going out of fashion. Or coming in, or something like that ... :-) Some real examples: "I have asked for pricing around the product" meaning "I have asked for the price of the product". "We need to make some assumptions around power supply capacity" meaning "We'll have to assume what the power supply capacity is". "To discuss installation requirements around the next generation model" meaning "To discuss installation requirements for the next generation model". "This should encompass a brief discussion around lessons learned" meaning "We should briefly discuss the lessons we learned". As far as I can tell, it's partly people just being fuzzy with what they mean, but also partly they *want* to be fuzzy to soften what they're saying. -Ben Many thanks to Ben for sending the examples to us and allowing us to share them here. Articles on writing - Tricks of the trade Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:02:38 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=30 How do we express time in English? How do we indicate that an action happened in the past, or is happening now or is expected to happen in the future? Grammatically speaking, we express time using a combination of tense and aspect, supported at times by phrases such as 'yesterday' and 'tomorrow night'. In this note on grammar, we will look briefly at the concepts of tense and aspect, and outline the tenses of the English verb. The purpose is to gain a basic understanding of how English is put together, so that we can analyse our own writing and improve it. The Oxford Reference Grammar explains that tense "refers to the location of a situation in time"(11.4). This location is expressed in English in the form of the verb: Simple present: I, you, we and they laugh; He or she laughs Simple past: I, you, he, she, we and they laughed You can see that the simple present uses two forms of the verb: laugh (the 'base' form of the verb) and laughs. The suffix -s (-es where the verb already ends in a sibilant) is used for the third person singular in all verbs except the modals ('can', 'must', 'shall', 'will', 'should' and 'may'). The simple past uses one form of the verb: laughed, where -ed (or -d if the verb already ends in e) is added to the base. However, there are common exceptions to this, such as (I, you, he, she, we and they) wrote, ran, and slept. Aspect, on the other hand, "refers primarily to the way that the time of the situation is regarded rather than its location in time in absolute terms"(11.4). It is expressed by the use of an auxiliary verb with the main verb. In English, there are two aspects: one where the action is considered as continuing (progressive aspect), and one where the action is considered complete (perfect aspect). Progressive aspect: I am laughing Perfect aspect: I have laughed Some grammarians regard the perfect aspect as a tense because it refers to an action in the past, either of the speaker or in real time; for example: I have taken out the rubbish, just as you asked me to. Grammatically, this sentence is in the present (tense) perfect (aspect), but the action of taking out the rubbish can be placed in the past and we would therefore naturally think of it as being in the past tense. However, other grammarians see the perfect as an aspect "because it is retrospective in at least some of its uses"(11.4). For example: I have always thought him unforgiving. This sentence also is in the present perfect. But, here, the speaker is making a retrospective observation. The intention is to underscore that those impressions, from the point of view of the speaker, were held prior to now and are still held now. The purpose here is not to get into the details of these issues, but to point out that the two concepts of tense and aspect are not clear cut. From a strictly grammatical point of view, in which tense is defined as being shown by a verb inflection, the present and the past are the only two tenses in English. The future is not regarded as a tense, because it is expressed using an auxiliary verb (usually, 'will'). In fact, auxiliary verbs enable many categories of time to be expressed, such as the future perfect and past progressive. The use of these auxiliaries will be covered in future notes on grammar. Reference: Sidney Greenbaum: The Oxford Reference Grammar, edited by Edmond Weiner, Oxford University Press, 2000. Articles on writing - Grammar and punctuation Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:10:58 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=30 ... around, that is. Have you noticed? The word 'around' seems to be in takeover mode. Where before people would say, "at about 4 o'clock", they now say "around 4 o'clock". This North American usage, like so many other North Americanisms, is creeping into British English. Well, we can live with that. Language changes, and if 'around' has come to mean 'at about' in references to time, we're not going to get upset about it. However, it doesn't stop there. We're seeing "discussion around" in place of "discussion about" or "discussion on"; "issues around" in place of "issues arising from"; and "new legislation around" rather than "new legislation on" or "new legislation covering". We've even seen "the focus was around"! Well, we're not sure we can live with that. "Discussion around" may be acceptable; it allows for discussion relevant to, but not strictly on, the topic and if that's what's meant, that's fine. But legislation is usually specific: new law on biosecurity, for example, is not likely to cover anything other than biosecurity. And we think "the focus was around" is a contradiction in terms. If you spread a focus out, surely it's not a focus any more? We wonder: is this extended use of 'around' just a natural semantic shift, with no overall loss of meaning (you infer the nuance from the context)? Or are we getting lazy and losing precision in our language – and, as George Orwell would argue, in our thought as well? What do you think? Articles on writing - Tricks of the trade Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:28:43 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=25 Dear Right Words: Well, you're not even in the same country as I, and maybe in your country right words are used more easily, or more frequently. I love words like "easily" and "frequently." I believe they answer the question "how." I believe they are adverbs. In my country, adverbs are being ruined. It is as if newspapers and television news entities have a new guidebook that says every word that ends in "ly" will have it dropped. As in, for instance, "She danced so graceful." Then, even words that don't end in "ly" are misused. The man on TV just said, "I was treated great by the NYPD." I guess because "great" is an adjective, not an adverb, and because the implied question "How did the NYPD treat you?" calls for an adverb, not an adjective, I squirm. I want to hear "well," or "very well." There is the awful conversion of "lie" to "lay," when speaking of reclining in the present tense. "I like to lay down in the afternoon." No! I like to lie (present) down in the afternoon. That is why I lay (past!) down yesterday afternoon. It continues to be mixed up: "I was just laying there." No! I was just lying there. Doesn't this have to do with transitive (has an object) and intransitive (shows action or a state of being) verbs?: I lay the book on the table. I laid the book on the table. I have laid the book on the table. (transitive) (It's all Dylan's fault:: "Lay Lady Lay, lay across my big brass bed.") But today the book lies (is lying) on the table. Yesterday the book lay on the table. The book has lain on the table since Tuesday. (intransitive) The last time I learned the parts of speech was in about 1946 when we had a year of Latin in school. Can you suggest a good, basic grammar text? Something about fifty years old would be heavenly! We feel the same sort of exasperation at times, although I don't think the adverb has gone quite as far along the road to perdition in New Zealand as it seems to have in the States. As for 'lay' replacing 'lie', yes, it happens here, too, but it's still the exception rather than the norm and is generally recognised as incorrect. (Maybe Tanya Tucker(?) is to blame, too: "Would you lay with me in a field of stone?") Of course you are right, it is a transitive/intransitive, and a tense, distinction. It's funny you should mention Latin as a context for learning parts of speech. My basic English education was good but I think I gained most of my understanding of grammar from learning Latin and, later, other languages. Occasionally, people ask us what qualifications we have to do the job we do - "Have you got an English degree?" I don't think an English degree these days would teach me anything about grammar or much about how to write. Which brings me to your question about a grammar text - gosh, I don't think I can, although there must be some around. Not a basic one, anyway (but I don't think you need basic?) One text that I've found very useful is Sidney Greenbaum's Oxford Reference Grammar (Oxford University Press, 2000). It covers British and American usage and although it's descriptive rather than prescriptive, it contains useful comment. It's not basic in that it's quite 'in depth', but it's very lucid. Answers - Answers to questions Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:39:07 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=25 Throughout my schooling, I was not taught to hyphenate my words. My boss however, continues to dictate that the following words, for example, should be hyphenated in our company material; Much-loved Three-course On-going If you could please provide me with some explanation to the use of hyphens, that would be much appreciated. That's rather a tall order, especially as, to some extent and in some contexts, the use of hyphens is discretionary. But we'll try to give you an overview. There are probably three main areas where the hyphenation question arises, and they are compound nouns, compound adjectives and prefixes. Compound nouns: these are nouns like call-back, hanger-on and work-flow. There's a small problem here in that usage shifts. English has an agglutinative tendency; that is, words that go together tend to get joined together, first taking a hyphen and then becoming one word. So, work flow has become work-flow, but will probably end up as workflow (in line with workforce and workload). Therefore, some 'authorities' may take a more progressive stance than others. The best thing here is probably to just choose a dictionary you want to run with (Collins tends to be a bit more progressive than the Oxford) and be guided by that. Compound adjectives: these are adjectives like heavy-duty, even-tempered, deep-blue, and your "much-loved" and "three-course". These can be really snarly! The traditional rule is that when these adjectives appear before the noun, they are hyphenated: a heavy-duty battery, an even-tempered man, a deep-blue sea. When they follow the noun, they are not: the battery is heavy duty, the man is even tempered, the sea is deep blue. The main rationale for the hyphen is that the two elements of the compound must be read together to have meaning, so the hyphen is used to indicate this. The battery is not a heavy battery, or a duty battery, but a heavy-duty battery; the man is not an even man and, although he could be described as a 'tempered' man (in that he has a temper of some sort), the meaning is that he is an even-tempered man. Of course, you can have a deep sea and a blue sea, and that brings us to the other main reason for the hyphen: to avoid ambiguity. If you mean the sea is dark blue rather than deep and blue, you need the hyphen. Similarly, if you wanted to talk about the services provided by your local city council, you would put a hyphen in 'local body services' to distinguish them from those provided by the local undertaker or massage parlour. (Some organisations these days apply only the ambiguity principle, ditching the hyphen anywhere where it's not necessary to prevent misunderstanding. This is arguably justifiable but is still a minority stance.) However, there are exceptions to the above rule. One is when the first part of the compound is an adverb: a badly made shirt, a clearly marked boundary. Here, the adverb obviously qualifies the second part of the compound, so you don't need the hyphen. You can't have a badly shirt, or a clearly boundary. However, what about a well paid worker? This brings us to the exception to the exception: if the adverb is not obviously an adverb and/or could have another meaning, you need the hyphen. There are well-paid workers and well (healthy), paid workers. (This, of course, is another statement of the ambiguity principle above.) The other exception is when the compound is so common that it is immediately recognised as a unit, as in hot water cylinder, income tax bill and social welfare payments. Going by the traditional rules, we would agree with your boss hyphenating three-course, but not much loved, because 'much' is an easily recognisable, unambiguous adverb. Prefixes: the agglutinative principle applies here, too. The more a prefix like 'multi-' is used with a particular word, the more it is likely to lose its hyphen and form a 'solid' compound. So, if I look in my dictionary, some 'multi' words have a hyphen (eg, multi-angular) and some don't (eg, multinational). Again, authorities may vary and it's a matter of picking a dictionary and running with it. Accordingly, 'on' as a prefix may or may not take a hyphen. However, we have never seen ongoing with a hyphen. We think your boss is behind the times with this one. We hope that's some help to you! Answers - Answers to questions Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:23:24 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=25 This answer was given in response to a question about using ellipses. We have to confess we've never paid attention to the finer points of ellipsis. When we received your email, we went to the New Zealand Style Book (not so relevant for you, perhaps) and (Blake and Bly: The Elements of Business Writing). Both say that, where the ellipsis occurs at the end of a sentence, you have a period (close up as usual) to indicate the end of the sentence, then a space (as usual) before the three periods representing the ellipis. They don't comment on other situations, except the NZ Style Book recommends three or five periods at three-em spacing to indicate a missing paragraph. In our writing - and this tallies with what we've observed elsewhere - if the ellipsis bridges a sentence, we don't include the period. We think that, if the quote is intelligently edited so that the speaker/writer's train of thought is not misrepresented, you don't really need to know that one sentence has ended and another has started. Of course, if the quote resumes at the beginning of a sentence, you can tell that from the initial capital, so we would think that the period would not be necessary in that situation either. We're not at all sure that this will be helpful to you, but it's the best we can do. Let us know if you glean any pearls of wisdom from elsewhere! Answers - Answers to questions Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:52:50 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=9 In September, Right Words was approached by the Treasury to proofread a document containing the proceedings of a conference on macroeconomic policy, hosted jointly by the Treasury and the New Zealand Reserve Bank. Right Words worked with the Bank's editors to proof the layout of the document and ensure that it was consistent with the Bank's corporate standards. The document was "Testing stabilisation policy limits in a small open economy: proceedings from a macroeconomic policy forum" (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/workshops/12jun06/2837468.html). It is published on the Bank's website. Right Words was delighted to help out and looks forward to working on other documents in the future. News - News Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:36:38 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=9 One of Right Words' long-standing clients is the New Zealand Treasury. The Treasury is a pleasure to work for - the people we deal with are always friendly, clear with their instructions and realistic on turnaround times! We appreciate that and always look forward to working with them when they have jobs for us. In the past few weeks, we've done a couple of editing and proofing jobs, and we are about to embark on another this week. One of the papers we proofread was a Policy Perspectives Paper, "Environmental Risk Management in New Zealand - Is There Scope to Apply A More Generic Framework?" (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/workingpapers/2006/pp06-06.asp). We checked the document for spelling and punctuation errors and ensured that it conformed to the Treasury style guide. The other paper we proofread was the Treasury's "Statement on the Long-Term Fiscal Position 2006" (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/longtermfiscalposition/2006/), which examines what New Zealand's fiscal position might look like over the next 40 years. In addition to proofing the paper and checking it against the Treasury style guide, we also edited the Preface and Executive Summary. Alison is going to be in Wellington for the first two weeks of September, visiting clients and putting her feet up. She'll be staying with her brother, who has just moved to Waikanae, and she's looking forward to taking some walks on the beach. While she's away, Right Words can still be contacted in the usual way. News - News Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:02:41 +0100 http://rightwords.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=9 Welcome to the revamped Right Words website! We are not beyond admitting that we shamelessly neglected our old site. And its style betrayed the fact that it was created a decade ago. The amazing thing is that, despite this, we still regularly received e-mails from people congratulating us on the site and saying how much they used it. News - News Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:48:18 +0100