4 ms·
I agree with and like William Zinsser on many points, and I believe he has helped countless budding authors and language learners over the years to develop good
by grellas 17y ago
I agree with and like William Zinsser on many points, and I believe he has helped countless budding authors and language learners over the years to develop good writing skills. I know I read his books years ago and profited from them (I will never forget a funny introduction to On Writing Well, where he highlighted the point that good writing skills can only be developed through persistent, hard work over a long period by featuring a conversion between an author and a brain surgeon - who did writing "on the side" - in which the author chimed in that he too planned to do some brain surgery "on the side").
That said, English is a rich, beautiful, and varied language and we should be careful not to box ourselves in with arbitrary rules that limit our style. Mr. Zinsser's admonition not to use or over-use Latin-origin words does just that and is therefore too arbitrary to be productive.
Take the word "productive," which I just used. At its root is the Latin duco, ducere, duxi, ductus, generally meaning "to lead." So we get, in English, a rich range of words such as duke, duct, deduce, reduce, induce, introduce, produce, and all their variants (deductive, inductive, productive, etc.), all useful words in the right context.
Now there are countless words like this in English, and I don't think it is meaningful to try to sort them out from words having an Anglo-Saxon lineage and others thought to have punchier qualities. After all, well over half of English vocabulary derives from Latin and it seems self-defeating to limit yourself to less than half of the words available to you in choosing ways to express yourself.
Yes, do avoid writing in a bloated or hopelessly abstract style. Use punchy verbs to liven things up as occasion allows. But don't waste your time trying to sort words out by their etymological origin because words derived from Latin are not "the enemy" and, even if some of them are stilted, many or even most are not.
If I may suggest my own rule: do not mechanically apply arbitrary rules on word choice but rather choose your words to suit the context, following your instincts for what sounds right for your intended reader.
- pvg 17y agoUse punchy verbs to liven things up as occasion allows Neither Zinsser, nor Orwell (who wrote the famous essay with similar advice) say the use of such words is to be 'punchy'. I don't know where you and the angry commenter I replied to get that from. It's not advice meant to be make your prose 'punchy' but clearer and better. 'Punchy' is, frankly, dismissive. Latin words are, of course, unavoidable and necessary in English. They're hardly all bad. Many often sound more 'formal' and important and are thus overused, though. The advice offered is really a call for vigilance and care - it's easy to slip into the overly-ornate style. It's particularly relevant to the foreign students Zinsser was addressing. No style rules are immutable and absolute. But the guidelines offered by Orwell and echoed by Zinsser and many others form an important baseline. It's not supposed to be a narrow rail of a style you should never stray from. You're better off learning it well, though, before you do.
- grellas 17y agoAs I recall, the warning about overuse of Latin derives from Fowler and goes through Strunk and White (might be mistaken about the latter), where I think the contrast is drawn with words that are described as being more "vivid." I stand corrected on having used "punchy" in a way that appears dismissive. I am in complete agreement with the rest of your analysis as well, including with your admiration of Mr. Zinsser. Believe me, I spent years trying to master style, and I highly value the guidelines put forth by Mr. Zinsser and others to assist in that process. As long as they are not treated as rigid rules, they are most salutary (or is it healthful) for our learning. Gratias tibi ago.
- pvg 17y agoAh you're right, it's in Fowler and in fact, in the earlier (first edition 1906) The King's English. Fittingly, for something that evolved into a classic, it touches on almost all the points discussed in this thread, in one paragraph and a footnote: http://www.bartleby.com/116/101.html#5 http://www.bartleby.com/116/101.html#5