6 ms·
Checklist for Plain Language
- consultutah 9y agoDefines any word as the speaker intends, not as the word is normally defined. ;)
- pvinis 9y agoAlso, doesn't omit anything in the name of "simplicity" or "plain-liness".
- melicerte 9y agoDon't try to replace a good dictionary. In other words, don't fill your writing with definitions.
- PrimHelios 9y agoMost words have multiple definitions, hence legal definitions.
- melicerte 9y agoI'm not telling definition should totally be avoided but when you write (technical documentation for instance), you often want to define some specific words. It uselessly extends the document and might confuse your reader.
- drdaeman 9y agoLegalese tend to define things even if that seems absurdly excessive and obvious. IANAL but I've read recently that it's like that because of contra proferentem principle[1]. It's basically a defense against a chance someone may invent some interpretation (different from what's intended) that would look plausible enough. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem
- walshemj 9y agoyes there is one big case in the uk concerning pensions the outcome depended on what seemed to a layperson trivial wording differences in the scheme of arrangement
- drdaeman 9y agoInteresting. Can you please share a link to this story, if you have one?
- walshemj 9y agoIts in connection with BT Section B and later DB pesnions https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/09/25/bt-goes-to-court-over-pension-inflation-switch/ https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/09/25/bt-goes-to-cou... This switch to CPI was bared a few years before for British coal - the two schemes of arrangement differ in a very minor way - that a lay person would say where identical
- gumby 9y agoA lovely case on this matter was over the leaseholder for the World Trade Center in New York against his insurance company: when two planes hit two buildings was it one event or two? The insurance policy rider specified a per event payout. http://www.economist.com/node/1139548 http://www.economist.com/node/1139548
- DanBC 9y agoSee also the Accessible Information standard from the English NHS. https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/accessibleinfo/ https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/accessibleinfo/ (I have a few problems with the NHS England accessible info stuff, most of which are around how inaccessible it all is.)
- joelanman 9y agoAlso UK Government Digital Service guidance on writing: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u...
- FreakyT 9y ago• Use the word "great" as often as possible, unless it does not apply, in which case end your statements with an emphatic "sad!"
- empath75 9y agoThe reason that government writing (and institutional writing in general) is often so bad isn’t because the people writing it don’t know how to write plainly, but because they don’t want to. When you’re reading something from an institution that seems unnecessarily obscure or indirect or passive, there is usually a reason, and that reason is usually that if they had stated the plain truth, it would make them look bad. There was a great geeky essay about the language of the video game portal that went into this: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/114904/Analysis_Portal_and_the_Deconstruction_of_the_Institution.php https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/114904/Analysis_Portal_a... And of course the classic Orwell essay: http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...
- walshemj 9y agoAh economical with the actualité about pensions becoming Nugatory
- ryandrake 9y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made
- jwilk 9y agoNon-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made
- happy-go-lucky 9y agoIf anyone is interested, here's Strunk, William, Jr. 1918, The Elements of Style: http://www.bartleby.com/141/ http://www.bartleby.com/141/
- rspeer 9y agoHowever, remember not to take a 99-year-old book literally as a style guide. Strunk & White contains some timeless advice. Most (but not all) of the habits it identifies as bad writing are still considered bad. But for positive examples of how to write well, you can't follow the example of a book from 1918. Its language is inherently dated and it predates linguistics as a science. You need a newer style guide.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- CalChris 9y agoThe height of government writing would be Rachel Carson. She's best known for Silent Spring but her Sea books are just as good. Much of her writing was published by the GPO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#List_of_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#List_of_works But as for writing advice, the CIA isn't so bad. Thinking and Writing: Cognitive Science and Intelligence Analysis https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/Thinking-and-Writing-Feb2010-web.pdf https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig... Also, the earlier Bestiary of Intelligence Writing. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000619161.pdf https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000619161....