Plain English: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|}}Here is a resource about plain English. | {{a|plainenglish|}}Here is a resource about plain English: see the panel on the right; click ᐅ to expand the list of topics. | ||
These address, variously, and with varing degrees of perspicacity, [[parts of speech]]; about how a [[mediocre lawyer]] can turn the [[active]] [[passive]]; make a simple [[preposition]] into a [[Compound preposition|compound one]] in the blink of an eye. About how to [[Nominalisation|nominalise]] [[verb|verbs]] - or should I say, how to ''subject [[verb|verbs]] to [[nominalisation]]''. About how to ornament a perfectly sensible [[conjunction]] into a dense [[conjunctival phrase]]. | |||
As I have grown older and, frankly, tired of waiting for it, I have come to disbelieve the [[efficient language hypothesis]] to which those who appeal to [[plain English]] subscribe. It will not arrive by itself; it will not evolve; it is not an unstable aberration waiting on some tipping point to correct itself. It is systemic. It is a function of how lawyers train, organise and evaluate themselves. The systemic forces encouraging prolixity are psychological, instinctive and visceral; they outweigh the intricate silken constructions our rational selves conjure in the air. They are the elephant to our logical rider. If we are to fix this, we need to come from a different place. We are trying that with the [[semantic code project]]. Nothing ventured; nothing gained. | As I have grown older and, frankly, tired of waiting for it, I have come to disbelieve the [[efficient language hypothesis]] to which those who appeal to [[plain English]] subscribe. It will not arrive by itself; it will not evolve; it is not an unstable aberration waiting on some tipping point to correct itself. It is systemic. It is a function of how lawyers train, organise and evaluate themselves. The systemic forces encouraging prolixity are psychological, instinctive and visceral; they outweigh the intricate silken constructions our rational selves conjure in the air. They are the elephant to our logical rider. If we are to fix this, we need to come from a different place. We are trying that with the [[semantic code project]]. Nothing ventured; nothing gained. | ||
Revision as of 21:15, 8 February 2021
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
Here is a resource about plain English: see the panel on the right; click ᐅ to expand the list of topics.
These address, variously, and with varing degrees of perspicacity, parts of speech; about how a mediocre lawyer can turn the active passive; make a simple preposition into a compound one in the blink of an eye. About how to nominalise verbs - or should I say, how to subject verbs to nominalisation. About how to ornament a perfectly sensible conjunction into a dense conjunctival phrase.
As I have grown older and, frankly, tired of waiting for it, I have come to disbelieve the efficient language hypothesis to which those who appeal to plain English subscribe. It will not arrive by itself; it will not evolve; it is not an unstable aberration waiting on some tipping point to correct itself. It is systemic. It is a function of how lawyers train, organise and evaluate themselves. The systemic forces encouraging prolixity are psychological, instinctive and visceral; they outweigh the intricate silken constructions our rational selves conjure in the air. They are the elephant to our logical rider. If we are to fix this, we need to come from a different place. We are trying that with the semantic code project. Nothing ventured; nothing gained.
Some intellectual impostures, then: