Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am writing a list of props and found myself writing

...including, but not limited to...

(and here in context):

  • Options for Scary Creatures (can include, but not limited to);
    • Mummy
    • Vampire
    • Frankenstein's Creature
    • Goblin
    • C'thulu

My question is this: Is there a nicer way to write this phrase. I want to say, "here is a list of scary creatures that you can include, but if you want to use something else, then go for it", but in a nicer way.

share|improve this question
4  
I think you mean "Frankenstein's Monster." /pedant –  PyroTyger Oct 22 '10 at 6:43
2  
By the way, isn't there an is missing, as in "can include, but is not limited to"? –  RegDwigнt Oct 22 '10 at 10:48
    
Note that "including" is very different from "can include". The former guarantees inclusion, the latter specifies items that might be, but are not necessarily included. –  dbkk Oct 22 '10 at 11:58
1  
may i suggest C'thulu as a monster? –  Claudiu Oct 22 '10 at 13:51
1  
Why "options… can include"? The options do include these, don't they? Is there some later date where the list of options will be decided, and it is not known whether these will then be included among options or not? –  ShreevatsaR Feb 8 '11 at 7:59
show 1 more comment

3 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

A more concise version would be:

Possible Scary Creatures:

  • Mummy
  • Vampire
  • Frankenstein's Monster
  • Goblin
  • Margaret Thatcher
share|improve this answer
    
Though this could imply these are the only possible choices, which is what OP was trying to avoid. –  onomatomaniak Oct 12 '11 at 12:44
add comment

A full sentence may better introduce this list:

  • Options for Scary Creatures would include, for instance:
    • Mummy
    • Vampire
    • Frankenstein
    • Goblin

That would make the possibility of using other terms implicit.

share|improve this answer
    
Even "would" is unnecessary, IMHO. All of these are options already, not merely conditionally on something happening in future. –  ShreevatsaR Feb 8 '11 at 8:01
    
I don't think we can say that 'would' is unnecessary without knowing the full context. –  Barrie England Oct 12 '11 at 10:27
add comment

What about:

  • Options for Scary Creatures, e.g.:
    • Mummy
    • Vampire
    • Frankenstein's Monster
    • Goblin
share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.