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

Mary Dash's Writing Tips

plainlanguage.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#31

Post by smacktoward »

jfengel wrote: post #15

I find the "avoid gobbledygook" instruction a little odd. It's really about adopting a less formal register, which is fine, but words like "additional" and "purchase" aren't really obscure. From the examples, it seems to be more about avoiding French- and Latin-derived words, and using Germanic-derived ones instead. We do tend to use our Norman root words in legal and other formal registers, and Anglo-Saxon roots do…

The point isn't that they're valid words (you're right, they are), but that they're not commonly used words, and thus come across as formal and somewhat show-off-y. More people will understand a simple, commonly used word than will understand a more complex, less commonly used one, even if it's an exact synonym.

The people who write for governmental agencies tend to be highly educated people, and highly educated people have a bad habit of thinking that if they aren't constantly demonstrating how highly educated they are, someone will come along and take all their certificates away. So they lard their prose down with ten-dollar words, which makes sure that the only thing their readers will come away with is a sense of just how smart they are. (Or think they are, anyway.)

For a writer, the road to hell is paved with thesaurus pages. Use simple words, and anyone with basic literacy will be able to understand you.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#32

Post by dan-robertson »

jfengel wrote: post #15

I find the "avoid gobbledygook" instruction a little odd. It's really about adopting a less formal register, which is fine, but words like "additional" and "purchase" aren't really obscure. From the examples, it seems to be more about avoiding French- and Latin-derived words, and using Germanic-derived ones instead. We do tend to use our Norman root words in legal and other formal registers, and Anglo-Saxon roots do…

If you’re writing for a very wide audience, many of whom may not have good literacy, then avoiding anything slightly complicated matters a lot. There are all sorts of words one often sees in documents from governments (and this article is from and for the us government) that are not suitable for wide audiences. For example:

- shall

- one as a pronoun

- whom (instead of “incorrectly” writing who)

- sentences with lots of clauses

- basically any uncommon word, especially a long word or one with an uncommon morphology that makes it hard to sound out

People with poor literacy will not be able to scan text and so every sentence and paragraph should be short and to the point (as it may be read in its entirety and if it is too long it will be skipped). I think something like 40% of the US has this level of literacy.

Incidentally, writing for an audience like this improves the efficiency and engagement of mere literate people too.

As an unrelated point: many legal phrases use both a Germanic and Romance word, eg assault and battery; breaking and entering

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#33

Post by draw_down »

sharedfrog wrote: post #20
draw_down wrote: post #9

The thing about avoiding passive voice drives me batty- not just here, that admonition is everywhere. Sometimes it's useful, that's why it exists. Using it does not (necessarily) indicate a moral failing.

> that admonition is everywhere Generally speaking, I think it's because this advice is very easy to remember and repeat. Passive voice is easy to spot. Someone reading to look for errors can easily go "Aha! You did a naughty here." because they were once told that "passive = bad".

Yes, that's exactly my issue. People see it and just immediately throw up the red flag as if it were an actual grammatical/syntactic error.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#34

Post by dan-robertson »

nixpulvis wrote: post #25

Re: pronouns. They suggest the use of "you", but I feel pretty good about using "we" in its place quite often. For example: "we can now see that x is in fact greater than 10" sounds a lot less demanding than "you can now see ...". I, the author, am also a reader.

I think this construct is quite formal and quite unfamiliar to people who have not read the kind of academic literature where it is common

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#35

Post by cranekam »

The UK bank Monzo has a great page about tone of voice with many of the same ideas:

https://monzo.com/tone-of-voice/

Also, The Economist has really great English. Despite being quite well-known for using very obscure words now and then the bulk of its writing is very clear, with succinct sentences and everyday words (they often use words like "stuff" in exactly the same way as spoken English). I don't always agree with its editorial stance but I find its style very enjoyable.

Orwell's Six Rules for Writing are great as well (along with pretty much everything he wrote):

https://infusion.media/blog/george-orwells-six-rules-for-wri...

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#36

Post by cranekam »

dan-robertson wrote: post #32
jfengel wrote: post #15

I find the "avoid gobbledygook" instruction a little odd. It's really about adopting a less formal register, which is fine, but words like "additional" and "purchase" aren't really obscure. From the examples, it seems to be more about avoiding French- and Latin-derived words, and using Germanic-derived ones instead. We do tend to use our Norman root words in legal and other formal registers, and Anglo-Saxon roots do…

If you’re writing for a very wide audience, many of whom may not have good literacy, then avoiding anything slightly complicated matters a lot. There are all sorts of words one often sees in documents from governments (and this article is from and for the us government) that are not suitable for wide audiences. For example: - shall - one as a pronoun - whom (instead of “incorrectly” writing who) - sentences with lots…

Definitely agree here. In addition, I am reasonably literate and understand all the uncommon words people use instead of everyday ones but I find reading windy prose is tiring. "I purchased a house", "we utilized the spoon", "Steve and myself are going to the pub" all sound a lot more clumsy and showoff-y than "I bought a house", "we used the spoon", "Steve and I are going to the pub".

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#37

Post by motohagiography »

The problem I have with the passive voice is how certain people use it to affect a kind of officious, administrative power. When I ask someone to clarify whether they're offering their own opinion or that of some other, specific external authority, they tend to get angry.

The passive voice is really the passive-aggressive voice, and I recommend taking every opportunity to antagonize it when someone uses it on you. It's not polite and euphemistic, it's bureaucratic, pseudo-intellectual, and bullying.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#38

Post by dctoedt »

jfengel wrote: post #15

I find the "avoid gobbledygook" instruction a little odd. It's really about adopting a less formal register, which is fine, but words like "additional" and "purchase" aren't really obscure. From the examples, it seems to be more about avoiding French- and Latin-derived words, and using Germanic-derived ones instead. We do tend to use our Norman root words in legal and other formal registers, and Anglo-Saxon roots do…

> They're perfectly cromulent words, with shades of meaning different from their "synonyms", and can be used to enhance writing rather than obscure it.

I had to look up "cromulent." Your use was in jest, right?

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#39

Post by ellius »

mrob wrote: post #23
puzzledobserver wrote: post #18

I concede that people have a tendency to overuse the passive voice, perhaps to appear less assertive, but... I find this injunction against the passive voice simplistic. The active and passive versions of a sentence _mean_ different things, and one cannot blindly substitute one for the other. Compare: 1. There was a cat in the house. She had not been fed by her owner that morning. She meowed loudly at the passing pos…

The famous opening line of Pride and Prejudice relies on passive voice: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." If you specify who's acknowledging it then the joke doesn't work.

This is a great example of where to use the passive voice. Austen reverses the sentence structure to pack the punch at the end.

In general, 2 good principles are:

1. Put the punch at the end of a sentence.

2. Put familiar information at the beginning of a sentence and new information toward the end.

The passive voice can help you with both of these design goals.

Orwell talked about where the passive voice is most dangerous/bad. It mainly comes down to thoughtlessness or insincerity. The passive voice removes or hides the actor, so it's useful for people trying to cloak their beliefs or hide assumptions.

"Politics and the English Language" is a great read, as is the book "Style."

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#40

Post by naniwaduni »

puzzledobserver wrote: post #18

I concede that people have a tendency to overuse the passive voice, perhaps to appear less assertive, but... I find this injunction against the passive voice simplistic. The active and passive versions of a sentence _mean_ different things, and one cannot blindly substitute one for the other. Compare: 1. There was a cat in the house. She had not been fed by her owner that morning. She meowed loudly at the passing pos…

see also passive loathing: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf
Post reply on HN