Plain English in ten little words: Difference between revisions

In the modern style, then, I offer you the [[JC]]’s guide to turgid drafting, through ten short 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]]''': 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]]''': A harmless [[preposition]] placing one thing in relation to another, “[[of]]” is often also a red flag for [[passive]] constructions:

*'''[[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:

*'''[[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).

*'''[[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]].

*'''[[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.''