82,892
edits
Plain English in ten little words: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
*'''[[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''. | *'''[[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]] | *'''[[By]]''': A dead giveaway to the passive voice. {{strike|The passive should be avoided by all good writers wherever it is found to be possible|Good writers avoid the [[passive]] voice when they can}}. It lacks energy. It evades responsibility. Write in the active, with energy, clearly assigning responsibility for action. | ||
*'''[[Of]]''': | *'''[[Of]]''': A harmless [[preposition]] placing one thing in relation to another, “[[of]]” is often also a red flag for [[passive]] constructions: | ||
{{quote|“[[In the event that|in the event]] ''[[of]]'' harm to the interests ''[[of]]'' the client ''[[by]]'' the broker...”}} | |||
:(did you see that ''[[by]]'' in there?) rather than: | |||
{{quote|“if the broker harms the client’s interests...”}} | |||
:Likewise, it signposts [[Nominalisation|nominalisations]]: | |||
{{quote|“I shall initiate the termination ''[[of]]'' the scheme”}} | |||
:rather than: | |||
{{quote|“I will terminate the scheme”.}} | |||
*'''[[Is]]''': Like “[[of]]”, we often hook up the commonest verb to longer [[infinitive|infinitives]] and [[noun]]s, making ugly [[passive]]s and [[nominalisation]]s. It is also a gateway drug to cluttered syntax. We [[legal eagle]]s are so acclimatised to writing this way we barely notice when we do it: I just caught myself writing: | |||
{{quote|“What I want ''is'' a document that ''is'' clear, plain and ''is'' understandable.”}} | |||
:Take out the existential verb and you get: | |||
{{quote|“I want a clear, plain, understandable document.”}} | |||
*'''[[Shall]]''': Fusty, old, imprecise language. Herewith, hereof, | *'''[[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 [[For the avoidance of doubt|to ''avoid'' doubt in the first place]] (though in my cantankerous opinion [[doubt]] is in any case underrated). | *'''[[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]]” | *'''[[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, add nothing: [[including]], [[without limitation]], [[for the avoidance of doubt]]. | *'''[[Including]]''': Parentheticals that, by definition, add nothing: [[including]], [[without limitation]], [[for the avoidance of doubt]]. | ||
*'''[[Writing for a judge|Judge]]''': For whom are you writing? ''Not'' posterity, ''not'' a judge, ''not'' to cover your backside. See: [[purpose]]. | *'''[[Writing for a judge|Judge]]''': For whom are you writing? ''Not'' posterity, ''not'' a judge, ''not'' to cover your backside. See: [[purpose]]. | ||
*'''[[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.'' | *'''[[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.'' | ||