82,891
edits
Plain English in ten little words: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*[[By]] — [[passive]] tense. Write in the active, with energy, and in a way that clearly assigns and accepts responsibility | *[[By]] — [[passive]] tense. Write in the active, with energy, and in a way that clearly assigns and accepts responsibility | ||
*[[Of]] — nominalisation, adjectivisation | *[[Of]] — nominalisation, adjectivisation | ||
*[[Shall]] — fusty old language. Herewith, hereof, | *[[Shall]] — fusty old 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 (because | *[[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. [[Without limitation]] | *[[Including]] — parentheticals that by definition do not add anything. [[Without limitation]] | ||
*[[Leverage]] — jargon that is designed to make the writer look wise, and not the reader enlightened. | *[[Leverage]] — jargon that is designed to make the writer look wise, and not the reader enlightened. | ||
*[[Judge]] — For whom are you writing? Not posterity, not a judge, not to cover your backside, | *[[Judge]] — For whom are you writing? Not posterity, not a judge, not to cover your backside, | ||
*[[Deemed]] — avoid legal tics. Things that, yes, you might be able to justify on tendentious logical or ontological grounds, but which ''don’t make a damn of difference in the real world''. So it might be true that the 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 a conceptual scheme they are different things, but they're identical, and you lose nothing, except a few dead scales of pendatic 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”? Exception to the rule: “[[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. But the principle remains: ''unless there is a legal, accounting or tax distinction that one might draw between the tedious and the plain articulations, use the plain one. | *[[Deemed]] — avoid legal tics. Things that, yes, you might be able to justify on tendentious logical or ontological grounds, but which ''don’t make a damn of difference in the real world''. So it might be true that the 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 a conceptual scheme they are different things, but they're identical, and you lose nothing, except a few dead scales of pendatic 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”? Exception to the rule: “[[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. But the principle remains: ''unless there is a legal, accounting or tax distinction that one might draw between the tedious and the plain articulations, use the plain one. | ||