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

61–70 of 94 posts

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

#61

Post by theandrewbailey »

eric_h wrote: post #52
theandrewbailey wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. h…

That's pretty well done, actually. Personally, I would add an addendum at the end that breaks out of the ten hundred most commonly used words and actually introduces the reader to the terms you're dancing around.

Thanks. I don't think that having a vocabulary list is necessary. Even though I recall there being such a list at the back of the book, I can't locate it on the XKCD site. I liberally linked to other places to further explain things with the big words. (Isn't that how the web is supposed to work?)

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

#62

Post by cyphar »

drb311 wrote: post #46
ethbro wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "To me, language is wielded with dual intention"

I've got to be honest. I actually prefer that one. Not for conveying meaning but it definitely sounds nicer -- as a though it were a part of a Shakespearean soliloquy.

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

#63

Post by andreasvc »

weinzierl wrote: post #42
andreasvc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I know, it's fascinating. But it doesn't detract from my point.

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

#64

Post by mendelk »

Off topic:

I attended a school with little to none "secular" education, but I was by nature really curious about things.

At some point, I got my hands on "How Stuff Works", the book[0], and devoured it. It was a super-enlightening book. I'd even venture to say it set me on my autodidactic path to programming.

If this book serves the same purpose for someone as that book did for me, it's benefits cannot be overstated IMO.

As an extra bonus, I was considered by my peers to be far more knowledgable than I actually was, due to having a layman's understanding (or at least the appearance thereof) of _so many_ esoteric concepts. 10/10 would read again!

[0] http://amzn.com/0785824324

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

#65

Post by kbenson »

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."

Doesn't the "was" change who the action applies to? E.g. "John assaulted a date" vs "John was assaulted by a date"? I'm not entirely sure "John was set upon a date" makes sense. Then again, I've never been great with the specific rules of English, even though it's my first language (likely because it's my first language, and I learned it not as rules, but through immersion as a child).

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

#66

Post by Pitarou »

jgrahamc wrote: post #15
Pitarou wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that, in trying to make a second point, jgrahamc accidentally proved his first.

It wasn't an accident. I was showing that the ambiguity introduced by his language means that it's hard to understand what's really going on.

Well that was clever. :-)

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

#67

Post by Pitarou »

eterm wrote: post #29
jgrahamc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Often you have to already know what he's talking about to get meaning from his words. For example, his description of the Saturn V Rocket (he replaced rocket with 'up goer') has this description of hydrogen: "The kind of air that once burned a big sky bag and people died (And someone said "Oh the [humans]!") I guess that's amusing if you already know about the Hindenburg, or something. Also, speaking of the p…

To be fair, Up-goer Five is the original for the comic, it was hardly intended at the time that it would take off the way it did. That it generated so much interest led to the book.

Are you sure it wasn't a teaser for a work in progress?

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

#68

Post by Pitarou »

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.

Nice try :-), but there's a reason why we write "upon" without a space. In normal speech the prosody makes it perfectly clear that "upon" is one word, rather than two.

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

#69

Post by Pitarou »

Angostura wrote: post #20
JorgeGT wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person whose first language is not English, I find phrasal verbs one of the most challenging parts of the language. In fact I just searched set upon and was greatly surprised that it means attacking violently! I would have never guessed that from the words alone.

From what I recall, 'set' is the word in the English language which has most meanings - over 50.

Depending on which dictionary you use, it's either put or set.

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

#70

Post by Symbiote »

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.

In English lessons (in England) we had to write newspaper articles in the style of The Times and The Sun.

Writing for The Sun was more difficult, since it required keeping a reading age of about 8, and a very distinct style.

Post reply on HN