Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Write in Plain English

plainenglish.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 327 posts

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#271

Post by bonoboTP »

segmondy wrote: post #183
aazaa wrote: post #148

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…

Pronunciation changes meaning too. "i didn't say he stole the money." this doesn't say much, but when a word is stressed takes on a new meaning, so one should be careful to capture the stress in writing. I didn't say he stole the money. - someone else said it, not me i DIDN'T say he stole the money. - you think I said it, it wasn't me. i didn't SAY he stole the money. - I never said such a thing, might have suggested…

While obviously everyone's native tongue seems the most expressive to them, I can't shake off the feeling that written (and often even spoken) English is just lacking a lot of the nuance and expressiveness of other languages. It's just more factual and dry and lacks a lot of implied texture, even after having learned and used it for decades. (But perhaps I'm just still not advanced enough to notice it.)

For example in Hungarian, most of the above emphasis differences would have to be reflected in word order and would therefore be visible in writing.

This makes translation also quite difficult, because English likes to play with this ambiguity a lot: "I won't kill you." "Oh thank God!" "... Johnny, my assistant will." - this is hard to express the same way in Hungarian, because you'd have use a different word order in the first sentence if you negate the "I" vs. if you negate the "kill". (Or more precisely: you'd include the "I" if and only if it's emphasized, otherwise the "I" pronoun has to be omitted in Hungarian.)

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#272

Post by hoorayimhelping »

nicbou wrote: post #160
aazaa wrote: post #148

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…

> For example, readers tend to latch onto the last part of a sentence. Everything before "but" is often bullshit. "I'm not racist, but". "No offense, but".

Is it?

"I haven't ever gotten professional training, but I think my driving ability is above average because I analyze what I do."

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#273

Post by MaxBarraclough »

rocqua wrote: post #67
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I really dislike that example text. Starting a paragraph with However doesn't seem right. It ties the paragraph too intimately to the previous one, from which it should stand apart. Similarly, sometimes it may be ok to begin a sentence with But , but in this instance it doesn't read quite right. I'd have preferred: > At first you may still find yourself writing the odd long sentence, especially when trying…

I disagree with > Starting a paragraph with However doesn't seem right. If I were to do this, my paragraphs would become at least 3 times as long. Because much of my writing is complex enough that it takes about half a page to make the 'basic argument' and another half a page to explain the exceptions to the basic argument. I would put both half-pages in separate paragraphs. And I do think it makes sense to start the…

> If I were to do this, my paragraphs would become at least 3 times as long. Because much of my writing

I find this jarring to read. That should be a comma, not a period. By using a period, you've technically made your sentence shorter, but the structure is unchanged. Alternatively you could just chop the Because, and it would flow fine. I really doubt your writing is thrice the density of mine. I very rarely encounter writing that approaches sentences this way, authors are able to get by fine without it.

I find it similarly jarring to read the sentences beginning with and, or but. It's as if you've told me the sentence is finished, only to then reopen it. It's like a programming language permitting a && b; && c;

There may be situations where it's ok to do this, but I wouldn't overuse it.

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#274

Post by bonoboTP »

jhpriestley wrote: post #252

It is not only the sheer pleasure of reading language used to its utmost, an indulgence found in the enduring literary accomplishments of Shakespeare or Dickens but somewhat lacking in the trendier, reportorial style of a Hemingway (who, after a hundred years, it seems safe to say has not reached the same level of immortal acclaim), but also if I may venture, a particular suitability to the kind of digressive, meande…

That style has its uses for sure. For example if you want to impress people or signal belonging to certain groups. It's also risky to state something in a crystal clear way, because you can be disproved and your status is diminished. As long as you write in long sentences and a confusing academic style, you can feel safe in your lukewarm puddle and enjoy your high status and sneer at the plebs. It's a sign of insecurity and inferiority complex.

If you actually have substance to say and feel confident about it, then chunk it up. Clear writing needs courage and is a weapon in itself against the entrenched lazy elites. A slingshot of David against Goliath. While unclear writing is a middle finger towards the public.

Also, I disagree that Shakespeare is as obscure and hard to read as your comment would suggest. He is just from a different era but was quite a down-to-earth fellow, not some stuck-up obscurantist.

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#275

Post by motohagiography »

ativzzz wrote: post #251
motohagiography wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah, indeed. I'd say the passive voice is a common a tool for patronizing people, and too much tolerance for it is bad for an organization.

> and too much tolerance for it is bad for an organization Passive again! "An organization tolerating it too much is bad" is active :)

The intended more-active would be "A leader who tolerates too much of it harms their organization," so it doesn't always transpose.

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#276

Post by bonoboTP »

secondcoming wrote: post #166
throwawaylolx wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how they banned "empower" with no added explanation while the Rust team was bending backwards to argue that there is nothing wrong with the word when, in 2018, they controversially changed their motto to "A language empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software." ( https://rust-lang.org/ ) Obviously gov.uk material is of a different nature than that of a corporate motto, but it speaks to the exa…

What's wrong with 'empower'?

It has become a buzzword. Sprinkle it in your text (along with "experiences", "embrace", "diverse", "engagement" etc.) and your text will be hard to argue against. Words are weapons. Just like you have to sprinkle "democracy" and "peace" in statements when you start wars as a country.

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#277

Post by T-hawk »

nicbou wrote: post #38
gorgoiler wrote: post #2

Writing clearly is like playing Tetris. Sentences should be presented with clauses that drop down and slot together efficiently. At the earliest available opportunity you drop in a block that completes the line and points are won/made. This can also make for rather dull writing and I appreciate the irony in this paragraph: > However, at first you may still find yourself writing the odd long sentence, especially when…

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…

I think none of those is the best way to write this. Start with the conditional first, so the reader knows a branch is coming. Then have the most common case immediately following. Invert the conditional if that's necessary to put the common case first. Restating the opposite of the conditional can make it even clearer.

"If you are age 59 or under, fill form 331. If you are 60 or over, fill form 445."

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#278

Post by criddell »

uniqueid wrote: post #31
brianmcc wrote: post #13

This Orwell essay stuck with me many years ago, well worth a read: https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...

It's only the best English essay of its kind — or maybe of any kind!

Even though I don't particularly like Orwell's writing, I read the essay and it's good but parts haven't aged well.

For example, in the pretentious diction section he lists words like expedite, predict, extraneous, and clandestine as unnecessary words used by bad writers. I wonder if he were still around today, would he stand by that list?

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#279

Post by pidg »

karaterobot wrote: post #265

I don't write in E-Prime, but I think it raises a valid point: you can often clarify and strengthen your English sentences by avoiding the verb "to be". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

Given someone called John who is a racist, can you find a way to say "John is a racist" in E-Prime without making John seem less racist?

Re: How to Write in Plain English

#280

Post by bonoboTP »

adwww wrote: post #30
dreen wrote: post #14

Heres a great list from GOV.UK of the kind of words to avoid when using Plain English: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...

You could play bingo with this entire list of words to avoid in most corporate meetings I've ever been to. Agenda, advance, deliver, deploy, facilitate, empower - all such cringy words when used out of context.

Since everyone knows this is corporate bullshit speak, I wonder if the actual function of these words is to signal that you're so high status that you can get away with not saying anything of substance. That you don't need to get your hands dirty with the real world, you can just float around in this vague space and still command a huge salary. Then you must be a powerful person who actually gets ahead through the shady under the table style of work. So if I see a successful person talking in this way, I can assume I can approach them with my nefarious plans and he'll be able to lie and deflect suspicion and successfully go through with corruption.
Post reply on HN