Plain English in ten little words: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In the modern style, then, I offer you the [[JC]]’s guide to turgid drafting, through ten words. | In the modern style, then, I offer you the [[JC]]’s guide to turgid drafting, through ten words. | ||
*[[May]] | *'''[[May]]''': Avoid redundancy. The parties may, but are not obliged to. “Nothing in the foregoing will prevent parties from —”. Don’t confer entitlements that the parties had in any case. Don’t say a thing more than is necessary. Don’t over-communicate. ''Less is more''. | ||
*[[By]] | *'''[[By]]''': [[passive]] tense. Write in the active, with energy, and in a way that clearly assigns and accepts responsibility | ||
*[[Of]] | *'''[[Of]]''': though seemingly a harmless preposition to place one thing in relation to another, “[[of]]” is often also a dead giveaway for [[passive]] constructions — “[[In the event that|in the event ''of'']] harm to the interests ''of'' the client by the broker” rather than “if the broker harms the client’s interests” — and [[Nominalisation|nominalisations]] — “I shall initiate the termination ''of'' the scheme”, rather than “I will terminate the scheme”. | ||
*[[Shall]] | '''*[[Shall]]''': Fusty, old, imprecise language. Herewith, hereof, | ||
*[[And/or]] | *'''[[And/or]]''': You are a professional writer: write like one. Be confident. Avoid nervous language in the first place, not doubt later on. [[Unless otherwise agreed]]; write [[For the avoidance of doubt|to ''avoid'' doubt in the first place]] (though in my cantankerous opinion [[doubt]] is in any case underrated). | ||
*[[ | *'''[[Verb]]''': complicated sentence constructions are aided and abetted by boring, colourless verbs: (because such colourless verbs (give, do, be, make, have, and the worst of all, [[effect]]) require colouring, usually an accompanying [[noun]] that could itself have been a verb, or an [[adverb]], whose definition is “a word you use only where you can’t think of a better [[verb]]” | ||
*[[Including]] | *'''[[Including]]''': Parentheticals that by definition do not add anything: [[including]], [[without limitation]], | ||
*[[Leverage]] | *'''[[Leverage]]''': Jargon designed to make a writer look wise. The key to communication is to enlighten the reader. | ||
*[[Judge]] | *'''[[Writing for a judge|Judge]]''': For whom are you writing? ''Not'' posterity, ''not'' a judge, ''not'' to cover your backside. See: [[purpose]]. | ||
*[[Deemed]] | *'''[[Deemed]]''': Avoid legal tics and [[Latinism]]s: Things that you might be able to [[Special pleading|justify]] on tendentious logical grounds, but which ''don’t make a damn of difference in the real world''. So it might be true that a redemption amount is “[[an amount equal to]] the final price” — yes, it is true the redemption amount isn’t, from a brutalised [[ontological]] perspective, ''the'' final price; in the conceptual scheme they are different things, but they’re identical, and you lose nothing, except a few dead scales of [[Pedantry|pedantic]] skin, by saying the “redemption amount ''is'' the final price”. Likewise “this shall be [[deemed]] to be that” what, practically is the difference between “being deemed to be something”, or (worse) “being deemed to be an amount equal to something” and just “''being'' something”?<ref>Exception to the rule which proves it: “[[equivalent]]”. Here there is a real-world difference — at least in that purblind topsy-turvy world occupied by accountants. It all relates to the difference between a [[title transfer]] and a [[pledge]]. Note: this might be ''me'' [[special pleading]]. </ref> But the principle remains: ''unless there is a hard-edged legal, accounting or tax distinction between a tedious and a plain articulation, use the plain one.'' | ||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
* [[Nominalisation]] and [[adjectivisation]] | * [[Nominalisation]] and [[adjectivisation]] | ||
* [[Writing for a judge]] | * [[Writing for a judge]] | ||
*[[Purpose]] | |||
{{Ref}} | |||
Revision as of 11:07, 29 November 2021
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
We all know legalistic drafting when you see it — if you are like me it will transport you from a state docile tranquility to one where you are ready to mete out physical violence, but there are legions for whom it is a toasty duvet under which they will gladly slip — but all the same it is hard to pin down exactly what is wrong with it. Many of the “tells” are short, small, inoffensive words.
In the modern style, then, I offer you the JC’s guide to turgid drafting, through ten words.
- May: Avoid redundancy. The parties may, but are not obliged to. “Nothing in the foregoing will prevent parties from —”. Don’t confer entitlements that the parties had in any case. Don’t say a thing more than is necessary. Don’t over-communicate. Less is more.
- By: passive tense. Write in the active, with energy, and in a way that clearly assigns and accepts responsibility
- Of: though seemingly a harmless preposition to place one thing in relation to another, “of” is often also a dead giveaway for passive constructions — “in the event of harm to the interests of the client by the broker” rather than “if the broker harms the client’s interests” — and nominalisations — “I shall initiate the termination of the scheme”, rather than “I will terminate the scheme”.
*Shall: Fusty, old, imprecise language. Herewith, hereof,
- And/or: You are a professional writer: write like one. Be confident. Avoid nervous language in the first place, not doubt later on. Unless otherwise agreed; write to avoid doubt in the first place (though in my cantankerous opinion doubt is in any case underrated).
- Verb: complicated sentence constructions are aided and abetted by boring, colourless verbs: (because such colourless verbs (give, do, be, make, have, and the worst of all, effect) require colouring, usually an accompanying noun that could itself have been a verb, or an adverb, whose definition is “a word you use only where you can’t think of a better verb”
- Including: Parentheticals that by definition do not add anything: including, without limitation,
- Leverage: Jargon designed to make a writer look wise. The key to communication is to enlighten the reader.
- Judge: For whom are you writing? Not posterity, not a judge, not to cover your backside. See: purpose.
- Deemed: Avoid legal tics and Latinisms: Things that you might be able to justify on tendentious logical grounds, but which don’t make a damn of difference in the real world. So it might be true that a redemption amount is “an amount equal to the final price” — yes, it is true the redemption amount isn’t, from a brutalised ontological perspective, the final price; in the conceptual scheme they are different things, but they’re identical, and you lose nothing, except a few dead scales of pedantic skin, by saying the “redemption amount is the final price”. Likewise “this shall be deemed to be that” what, practically is the difference between “being deemed to be something”, or (worse) “being deemed to be an amount equal to something” and just “being something”?[1] But the principle remains: unless there is a hard-edged legal, accounting or tax distinction between a tedious and a plain articulation, use the plain one.
See also
References
- ↑ Exception to the rule which proves it: “equivalent”. Here there is a real-world difference — at least in that purblind topsy-turvy world occupied by accountants. It all relates to the difference between a title transfer and a pledge. Note: this might be me special pleading.