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

The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#41

Post by acjacobson »

eddieroger wrote: post #27
drb311 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text editor is here: http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/ Try it! 1,000 words is an unrealistic constraint. But I'm amazed how often I use a complex word when the simple alternative is better. Or... Sticking to 1,000 words is hard. But doing it often makes my writing better.

I wasn't familiar with that tool, so I put a few of my last HipChat messages in there to see how I faired. Once I removed specific words or proper nouns, I still didn't do all that well. Even the preceding sentence had four problem words, and I'm pretty sure "preceding" would join them. I agree, sticking to 1,000 words is hard. But I don't think I agree that it makes the writing better. I look at language as a form o…

I am not sure anyone believes that writing with only 1000 words is better - but it should make the writing more understandable. There is a sharp curve in understanding from text that is easy (most magazine or newspaper articles) to dizzyingly complicated (most academic writing). For me the utility in simple writing is its accessibility to a wider audience.

Incidentally you did rather well in your second paragraph - only 'honestly, limit, common, curious, digested' were out of bounds, and they are easily swapped without much loss in expression.

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#42

Post by weinzierl »

andreasvc wrote: post #38
vanderZwan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I think would be interesting is if he tried another version without the 1000 most common words.

I don't think it's possible to form non-trivial sentences without function words. But leaving out common content words could be interesting.

Someone wrote a 260 pages long novel without using a single word that contains the letter 'e'. That seems impossible to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsby_%28novel%29

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#43

Post by ethbro »

eddieroger wrote: post #27
drb311 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text editor is here: http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/ Try it! 1,000 words is an unrealistic constraint. But I'm amazed how often I use a complex word when the simple alternative is better. Or... Sticking to 1,000 words is hard. But doing it often makes my writing better.

I wasn't familiar with that tool, so I put a few of my last HipChat messages in there to see how I faired. Once I removed specific words or proper nouns, I still didn't do all that well. Even the preceding sentence had four problem words, and I'm pretty sure "preceding" would join them. I agree, sticking to 1,000 words is hard. But I don't think I agree that it makes the writing better. I look at language as a form o…

To me, language is wielded with dual intention: (1) to convey meaning ("A thorough lecturer") & (2) to convey meaning in a pleasing manner to the listener ("A good lecturer").

Expanding vocabulary to accentuate (2) by necessity compromises (1) for classes of listeners / readers who are not familiar with that vocabulary superset. Which decomposes the optimization problem to "Who is my audience and what is their comfort vocabulary set?" I would expect it's >1,000 words even for ESOL listeners. However, it's certainly And furthermore, I think English writers writing for English consumers (I count myself among these, sadly) often undervalue writing in the most effective style for the widest audience when applicable (and nowadays it almost always is: research papers, comments on a public forum, blog posts, how to's, etc etc).

Does anyone have any links to courses to help develop a working minimally spanning English vocabulary for international technical communication?

This is one problem I've had with academic literature in historically liberal arts fields. "Just learn the obscure English vocabulary (before you can understand, work, or research in a field)" is a ridiculous bar to set in front of contributions.

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#44

Post by teh_klev »

Looking at the diagram of "Bags of stuff inside you" in "Thing Explainer" I was surprised to find that when annotating blood vessels, intestines etc he uses "hallway" and not "pipe", which I thought would be in the 1000 most often used english words. How curious.

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#45

Post by theandrewbailey »

drb311 wrote: post #23
GolDDranks wrote: post #3

I thought Thing Explainer is a fun experiment and a delightful book, but as an attempt (and it isn't a serious attempt) to use only simple and super-commonly-used language, it doesn't hit the home base. As I speak English as my second language I'm acutely aware of this. Thing explainer uses the 1000 most commonly used lemmas, but words have multiple senses, and some of them are commonly used and some are not. From a…

The text editor is here: http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/ Try it! 1,000 words is an unrealistic constraint. But I'm amazed how often I use a complex word when the simple alternative is better. Or... Sticking to 1,000 words is hard. But doing it often makes my writing better.

The constraint made me realize that the complex word isn't that helpful when the other person doesn't know much behind the word. You need to get inventive, and at some point, you might start having fun. I used this to explain encryption, and from the feedback I've got, I seem to have done a good job. It gets repetitive at times, but I managed to slip in PKI, password storage, and a brief summary of the Crypto Wars.

https://theandrewbailey.com/article/177/Hidden-Writing

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#46

Post by drb311 »

ethbro wrote: post #43
eddieroger wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't familiar with that tool, so I put a few of my last HipChat messages in there to see how I faired. Once I removed specific words or proper nouns, I still didn't do all that well. Even the preceding sentence had four problem words, and I'm pretty sure "preceding" would join them. I agree, sticking to 1,000 words is hard. But I don't think I agree that it makes the writing better. I look at language as a form o…

To me, language is wielded with dual intention: (1) to convey meaning ("A thorough lecturer") & (2) to convey meaning in a pleasing manner to the listener ("A good lecturer"). Expanding vocabulary to accentuate (2) by necessity compromises (1) for classes of listeners / readers who are not familiar with that vocabulary superset . Which decomposes the optimization problem to "Who is my audience and what is their comfo…

Rare words can make writing more efficient and enjoyable. But it doesn't always.

To my ears:

"I use language for two reasons:"

Is better than

"To me, language is wielded with dual intention"

But I always enjoy the word "florid", even though it's not in the top 1000 words.

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#47

Post by drb311 »

aptwebapps wrote: post #36
drb311 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text editor is here: http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/ Try it! 1,000 words is an unrealistic constraint. But I'm amazed how often I use a complex word when the simple alternative is better. Or... Sticking to 1,000 words is hard. But doing it often makes my writing better.

Try writing only in red ...

That's really hard!

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#48

Post by LeifCarrotson »

aptwebapps wrote: post #34
johnlbevan2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or phonetically similar / by moving a space: "John was set up on a date" - someone arranged a romantic encounter for John. "John was setup on a date" - on some specific day John was assembled. "John was set upon a date" - John assaulted a piece of fruit.

The last one made me laugh but you need to remove the 'was'.

No, it still works. Someone else has caused John to assault the fruit. "The guard dog was set upon an intruder, while John was set upon a date."

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#49

Post by FlyingAvatar »

johnlbevan2 wrote: post #31
gotodengo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case the phrase is a more artistic way of describing the beginning of a fight. Think of "John set upon Mike angrily" as John set, or selected, Mike as his target. It's also a great example of the topic at hand because the same phrase could be used like "The book was set upon the table." Describing a book that was placed on a table. Each version uses the same common vocabulary, to describe wildly different thi…

Or phonetically similar / by moving a space: "John was set up on a date" - someone arranged a romantic encounter for John. "John was setup on a date" - on some specific day John was assembled. "John was set upon a date" - John assaulted a piece of fruit.

> "John was setup on a date" - on some specific day John was assembled.

I read this one as: A romantic encounter was the guise by which John was framed for a crime.

Re: The Controlled Natural Language of Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer [pdf]

#50

Post by tgb »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #48
aptwebapps wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last one made me laugh but you need to remove the 'was'.

No, it still works. Someone else has caused John to assault the fruit. "The guard dog was set upon an intruder, while John was set upon a date."

Or, alternatively, it means that John was placed on top of a fruit.
Post reply on HN