151–160 of 327 posts
Something not written there: don't use acronyms Acronyms are a plague, especially in technical documents. These documents may include a glossary, which it better than nothing, but if an acronym is only used once or twice in a document, why not use the full name instead? Here is a couple of anecdotes: - I once overheard a heated argument between a project manager and some over guy who criticized his work. Turned out,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I learned Dutch, which does the same thing with the verb, and at one point after a few years it just clicked and started feeling natural to structure sentences that way. I've been living abroad long enough that occasionally I catch myself trying to organize English sentences in that way as I'm speaking (which, of course, results in falling flat on my face at the end.) In Dutch at least, you can imagine these really l…
Actually, in Dutch there is quite some flexibility in verb ordering. Teachers actively warn against so-called pliers-constructions where a subordinate clause is wedged between subject and verb. Example time! Dutch: "De man die de vrouw die bloemen plukt kust." Literally: "The man who (the woman (who flowers picks)) kisses" Meaning: "The man who kisses the woman that is picking flowers" The subordinate clause is sandw…
Correct, a sentence like this is quite easy to read:
De man, die gewoonlijk zijn handen afveegt aan zijn broek, besloot dit keer zijn handen af te vegen aan de handdoek die zijn vrouw, die gister nog bloemen aan het plukken was, specifiek hiervoor had neergelegd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must also consider people who are not native speakers. I'm sometimes appalled by the complexity of the letters I get in Germany, especially when they are related to immigration.
So, the solution is to dumb everything down to the least common denominator?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't make your readers hold parts of the sentence in their head. Reorder or split sentences until it can be avoided. In other words, use a really small buffer. "You must fill form 331 unless you are over 60 years old, in which case you must fill form 445." "You must fill form 331. If you are over 60 years old, you must fill 445 instead." "If you are over 60 years old, you must fill form 445. Otherwise, you must fill…
The worst of the three versions you've given is the second, as it makes use of a sentence which, taken on its own, is a lie. It's poor writing to state a mistruth and then whittle away at it until you arrive at the truth. Far better to build up truth upon truth until you arrive at the full picture. Bad: A natural number greater than 1 cannot be expressed as the product of two smaller natural numbers, if it is prime.…
A prime number is a natural number that is greater than 1, and not a product of two smaller numbers.
Commas let you catch your breath and flush the buffer. When there are two many commas, I use a bullet list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't make your readers hold parts of the sentence in their head. Reorder or split sentences until it can be avoided. In other words, use a really small buffer. "You must fill form 331 unless you are over 60 years old, in which case you must fill form 445." "You must fill form 331. If you are over 60 years old, you must fill 445 instead." "If you are over 60 years old, you must fill form 445. Otherwise, you must fill…
> Don't make your readers hold parts of the sentence in their head. Funny to read this as I'm learning German! In German the main verb of a sentence has to be at the end depending on the context (e.g: if it is a question, or following some prepositions such as "dass"). Let's say we want to build a question, it will be constructed this way: 1. question marker (such as "Was", "Wo", "Warum", etc) 2. subject 3. other det…
It's a pain for the translator to pull off the same effect in most other languages.
As someone who finds passive language patronizing and insulting, this is a relief to read.
“this is a relief to read” -> “reading this relieved me” Perhaps passive voice isn’t as annoying to you as you claim. There is a difference between writing passively and using passive voice.
Am I the only one who finds The List of Words to Avoid rather depressing? I mean I get what they are trying to do: minimise the number of letters. Yet, language is also about variety and not being really, really dull. Perhaps also about not treating your readers like idiots? Most of those slightly longer words look like perfectly legitimate alternatives in that regard.
It's not about banning new words, killing off long words or promoting completely perfect grammar. Nor is it about letting grammar slip.
A good complement to this article is Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," which talks about how people might use long, complex words (like those in the Words to Avoid list) to seem more important. That's the other side of the "variety" coin. The reality is that a skilled writer can walk that fine line, but most people are better off keeping their word choice simple and direct.
Am I the only one who finds The List of Words to Avoid rather depressing? I mean I get what they are trying to do: minimise the number of letters. Yet, language is also about variety and not being really, really dull. Perhaps also about not treating your readers like idiots? Most of those slightly longer words look like perfectly legitimate alternatives in that regard.
The article doesn't mention the way that word placement changes the meaning of sentences. From a video I recently saw but can't recall, consider these sentences: - Although John is a nice guy, he beats his dog. - Although John beats his dog, he's a nice guy. - John is a nice guy, but he beats his dog. - John beats his dog, but he's a nice guy. These are all plain English sentences, but will be interpreted quite diffe…
Everything before "but" is often bullshit. "I'm not racist, but". "No offense, but".