8 ms·
Writing Clear, Concise, Sentences
- seewhat 16y agoSimilar guidelines from the UK's Plain English Campaign:- http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- sp332 16y agoI'm positive the second comma shouldn't be there. (I wouldn't normally comment on commas, but it seems on-topic...)
- StavrosK 16y agoYep. They managed to refute their own title in four words, I am impressed.
- zwischenzug 16y agoExactly what I thought. I would have written "Writing clear and concise sentences"
- ryanklee 16y agoThey were attempting most likely to follow Strunk & White's idiotic dictum to omit all needless words. More often than not, when people trust Strunk & White to do their thinking for them, bad language occurs.
- zwischenzug 16y agoThat is a moronic dictum. I've always followed Fowler's Modern.
- RyanMcGreal 16y agoMuphry's Law in action.
- yread 16y agoIt's not on every page. It is ok in the title of this one http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/CCS_wordyphrases.html http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/CCS_wordyphrases.html for example
- rodion_89 16y agoIt depends on what you mean by "shouldn't". The Oxford comma is optional and considered syntactically correct if used. If you mean that it is more concise to leave it out, then thats another issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma EDIT: Ignore this. I thought he was referring to the first line of the post. "Follow the principles below to write sentences that are clear, to the point, and easier to read."
- dmpatierno 16y agoThis is not a case of Serial commas. The title "Writing Clear, Concise, Sentences" has two adjectives and one noun. It's not a list of three.
- adamzochowski 16y agoUnless the intent was: Writing clear sentences. and then 'concise' was added. As if to mean: Writing clear (concise) sentences.
- Fargren 16y agoWell, if that's the case, I don't want their advice in writing clear sentences.
- vorg 16y agoThe "concise" in "Writing clear, concise, sentences" is a non-restrictive adjective, tacked on as secondary information, and spoken between two pauses, with a different pitch to the other 3 words. The sentence could mean the speaker or author thinks sentences must be concise to be clear. The "concise", like the "clear", in "Writing clear concise sentences" is a restrictive adjective, primary to the meaning of the sentence, with all words spoken at the same pitch. Clarity and conciseness are orthogonal. Perhaps there's a slight pause between clear and concise, which could be shown with a single comma.
- ignifero 16y agoKind of makes me to not want to read the article
- thefool 16y agoclear and concise does not imply perfect grammar :).
- Radix 16y agoWe're being needlessly cheeky here. It isn't on every page and it isn't on the pdf. I propose it's an accident which happend when the document was moved from Word to the web. Notice the comma makes sense in How to Write Clear, Concise, and Direct Sentences. They just removed and Direct to shorten the title and someone, not necessarily the authors, mistakenly left the comma.
- epo 16y agoThe article headline has been fixed but the page title hasn't.
- sambeau 16y agoI assumed it was purposeful: an attempt at irony. Thus, I expected a funny article to be linked.
- grannyg00se 16y agoA lot of this information is presented as a consistent methodology when in fact it is very subjective. For example, one of the suggestions is that "you should try to avoid using inflated diction if a simpler phrase works equally well." Unfortunately, it is not clear when a simpler phrase works equally well. I may want to 'use' a certain phrasing in one scenario, but feel it is more appropriate to 'utilize' another phrasing in a different scenario. There is no simple rule that can be applied to determine whether one is more appropriate than the other.
- SlyShy 16y agoSome of the comments I've read seem to misunderstand the purpose of this page. This isn't the objectively best writing style, this is a concise writing style. No, it might not be the most pleasant to read, because extremely to-the-point short sentences sound blunt. The guidelines provided for writing short and concise sentences are very useful, if that's the style you are aiming for.
- telemachos 16y agoFrom the site: Follow the principles below to write sentences that are clear, to the point, and easier to read. I think they're claiming a lot more than "here's how to write concise sentences, if that's the style you're aiming for." Note also that this section ("Clear, Concise, Sentences" [sic]) falls under the heading "Improving Your Writing Style."
- abraxasz 16y ago> "Clear, Concise, Sentences" [sic]) falls under the heading "Improving Your Writing Style." Well I don't see the problem here. It is true that many righting concise sentences can help many people improve their writing style (it's the case for foreigners like me). I think the site targets two types of audience: - Those with very poor style who want to improve - People with good style who just want to learn how to write concise sentences. I'll give an example illustrating the second point. For some of my school projects, I had to review a lot of "science project reports", and similar stuff. Well trust me, it is painful to read a report with long, convoluted sentences expressing a simple idea..
- hammock 16y agoThese are great guidelines. If you don't at least understand them, your style probably sucks. And I say that objectively. Good writing skills are so important today when you consider that much of the writing people typically do is in an email or a powerpoint, not a romantic novel.
- entangld 16y agoGood writers are those who keep the language efficient. That is to say, keep it accurate, keep it clear. -- Ezra Pound
- xtacy 16y agoOne of the most cited books for better writing: Elements of Style: http://www.bartleby.com/141/ http://www.bartleby.com/141/. It's available for free. There are many "manuals of style" available as well like: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html.
- mellery451 16y agoAlas, this version does not include the edits and commentary by E.B. White (thus, it came to be known as "Strunk and White"), but it's an interesting archive of the original work.
- kruegerb 16y agoIt would be wise to refer to these guidelines while filling out an application for YC.
- synnik 16y agoKeep these points in mind when generating error messages to your end users.
- Ruudjah 16y ago> Writing Clear, Concise, Sentences With a title like this, I won't even read the thing. So many things are wrong with this first sentence. 1. Why The Capitals For Each Word? That screws with my human word recognition algorithm. 2. The title implies three things: Writing clear, do something concise and something with sentences. That's all but clear to me. "Writing clear": you mean writing the word clear? Does not sound interesting to me. What do you want with "Sentences" and "Concise"? Not clear at all to me. 3. Probably, the author meant something like "How to write clear & concise sentences". That gives the sentence instantly another meaning.
- tptacek 16y agoHaving not even read the thing, you might consider whether a detailed critical comment about the thing adds or subtracts to the discussion on HN.
- drv 16y agoIt's amusing that the "Avoid unnecessarily inflated words" section misspells "implement" as "impliment."
- tptacek 16y agoThis advice seems to mimic much of what's in _Style: Towards Clarity and Grace_, which I found out about from Richard Gabriel (achievement unlocked: LISP connection) and which is probably the most hacker-friendly writing book ever written.
- Estragon 16y agoI second the recommendation of this book.
- davidmathers 16y agoNote, Joseph M. Williams now has 3 different 'Style' books: Style: Toward Clarity and Grace Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace I can't speak to the first 2, but I purchased the 3rd and found it to be excellent.
- tptacek 16y ago... Toward ... is the one I have, and every time I reread it I feel like I should find a way to transcribe it into emacs lisp.
- akkartik 16y agoHmm, you mean have emacs warn you when you violate the guidelines?
- tptacek 16y agoYeah, or give metrics. There should be a startup in here. Paste bad writing in. Get good writing out. Improve income by 30%.
- telemachos 16y agoHave you seen the post 3 shell scripts to improve your writing, or "My Ph.D. advisor rewrote himself in bash."? It's Bash, not Emacs Lisp, but you might still enjoy it. Post: http://matt.might.net/articles/shell-scripts-for-passive-voice-weasel-words-duplicates/ http://matt.might.net/articles/shell-scripts-for-passive-voi... HN discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1529166 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1529166
- thedeuce 16y agoNO THNX LOL
- grellas 16y agoThe principles listed here are sound and helpful. If you follow them, your writing style will undoubtedly improve. But do not adhere to them as rigid rules or you will suffer in your ability to express yourself. Passive voice exists for a reason. Long words can add variety, rhythm, and color to your prose. Elongated sentences can help give your writing a flow that a mere parade of short sentences can never hope to achieve, not even after a thousand rewrites. Or not. All such items can be misused as well, and the books are replete with bloated forms of expression used by lawyers, politicians, educators, administrators, and the like who would not know a simple word or sentence even if it stood before them doing somersaults. The key is to know sound principles for clear and concise writing and then to apply them with a rhythmic ear for balance in your forms of expression. That means, yes, use passive voice, long words, and flowing sentences as needed to add grace to your prose but always with the baseline in mind: that is, to communicate in ways that are clear and concise and that people will readily understand for your stated purpose (formal style for formal settings, casual for casual, and whatever fits for anything in between). I note all this because, years ago, I consciously and diligently set about to attempt to master writing and stumbled upon the rock of "simplicity" during such stretches in my learning process where I had assumed that all one could do was follow such rules. Any attempt to apply such rules one-dimensionally is a mistake, and you will regret trying it. Follow sound principles, by all means, but not dogmatically. The other major keys to good writing are depth of language skills and extensive reading. No one will read your work unless you have something helpful to say. You get this by working hard to develop your skills, and lots of writing (and reading) is vital to this process.
- bryanh 16y agoReading this reminded me of some of the parallels one can make between writing and jazz. Ask any jazz musician and they will say that there are tons of "rules" and "suggestions" for what to play over specific harmonic movements. This is important, vital stuff for a jazz musician. However, they will also say to forget all that and go beyond, because expression shouldn't be confined by rules. I've always thought you abide by the rules just long enough to spot their usefulness and then your throw them out the window and create something new.
- firebones 16y ago
- bdesimone 16y agoIf you get the chance, read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never us a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Never use the passive where you can use the active. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
- telemachos 16y agoAnd then please read this essay from the Language Log in reply (or as a counter-point, at least): http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992.
- deadbadger 16y agoI only wish I could up-vote this more. See also this earlier Language Log essay (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003366.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003366.h...), in which Pullum points out that passives occur in "Politics and the English Language" at a considerably higher rate than was typical in contemporary periodicals - Orwell couldn't follow his own advice, even as he was dispensing it. The same goes for Strunk and White, who in the very passage instructing writers to abjure the passive, say: "Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can _be made_ lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expression as /there is/ or /could be heard/." Still, at least the guide linked in the OP has picked actual examples of the passive voice as illustrations, and concedes that there are times when it can be reasonably used (sorry, "writers can reasonably use it"). This makes it something of a rarity, even if the advice is still poor.
- cpeterso 16y agoI love The Economist's spartan (but cheeky) style guide, which opens with Orwell's six writing rules. This guide is based on the style book which is given to all journalists at The Economist. http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/ http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/ And when you're ready, here is The Economist's style quiz: http://www.economist.com/diversions/quiz.cfm?quizname=stylequiz http://www.economist.com/diversions/quiz.cfm?quizname=styleq...
- discreteevent 16y agoIts kind of an object oriented style isn't it? That doesn't mean that it transfers well to programming where there are other concerns apart from communication. (You don't have to worry about controlling state in your paragraphs). Anyway, for me the laziest way to improve my composition is to just read Hemingway and let the style rub off.
- lifefundr 16y agoI agree this is a very useful resource for writing in a concise manner. It is something I am attempting to implement in my daily writing. Even though it is old news the best advice I have come across is to write your content. Let it sit for an hour or more. Come back and read it out loud to yourself. This technique is underused and underrated in my opinion. Thanks for pointing out this resource. Bookmarked!
- Ythan 16y agoIf you want to improve the clarity of your writing, I also recommend StyleWriter (http://www.stylewriter-usa.com http://www.stylewriter-usa.com). It's a bit expensive, but the functionality is unique and helpful.
- NHQ 16y agoYou have to break rule number one to be a politician, corporation, or spokesperson for either. Passive voice is what you use to acknowledge that something fucked up, without placing the responsibility. "There was a failure of communication."
- anghyflawn 16y ago>There was a failure of communication. This sentence is not in the passive voice.
- philwelch 16y ago"Mistakes were made".
- jaywhy 16y agoI agree with the article that good writing is concise and clear, but don't conflate clear and concise with simplistic and short, thinking the only good sentence is a short sentence, as if we should all write like Hemingway in a hurry. "Vigorous writing is concise...this requires not that the writer make all sentences short, or avoid all detail and treat subjects only in outline, but that every word tell." - Strunk and White "The Elements of Style"
- portentint 16y agoYour best bet: Write every single day for at least 15 minutes. Writing isn't a talent, it's a skill.
- SoftwareMaven 16y agoPersonally, I really like George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"[0] as a writing guide. [0] http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
- syaz1 16y agoStephen Fry ranting on language nazis: Season 2, Episode 3: Language: http://www.stephenfry.com/category/media/audio/ http://www.stephenfry.com/category/media/audio/ I don't really know who he is, but he make some very convincing arguments.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- syaz1 16y agoAlso related, feeling lazy? Use Steve Hanov's word-removal tool to remove unnecessary words from your sentences: http://stevehanov.ca/blog/index.php?id=52 http://stevehanov.ca/blog/index.php?id=52
- xal 16y agoAre there any software packages or web services that help with this? Writing is a huge part of my job but because I'm english second language I'm lacking the intuitive sense for such rules. Especially since I learned most of my english in my formative years on internet forums...
- thorin 16y agoLink to my friend's blog. He consults on these matters http://www.thomasheath.tv/blog/ http://www.thomasheath.tv/blog/
- billybob 16y agoClear writing is difficult because it requires clear thought. This makes it worthwhile, even if no one reads it, because it shows the writer whether he or she understands the subject matter. Muddy writing, by contrast, is generally meant to impress and not convey information. The intended reaction is "I don't understand what you said, so you must be smart." This, unfortunately, seems to work for businesspeople and academics. But I hope that geeks can see through it.
- billybob 16y agoThis subject reminds me of a quote by CS Lewis about students being afraid to read classic works, and going instead to modern, unintelligible commentaries on them. "But if [the student] only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire." The rest of his essay: http://silouanthompson.net/library/early-church/on-the-incarnation/introduction/ http://silouanthompson.net/library/early-church/on-the-incar...
- telemachos 16y agoThis topic seems to have legs, so I'll recommend another book in this area: Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose[1] (by Francis-Noel Thomas and Mark Turner). They are far more thoughtful about style (what it is and how to teach it) than most writing guides. They acknowledge that there is not one best or ideal style for all occasions and that the style they describe and teach is one among many. It's an eye opening book in many ways. (Note: I see that there's a second edition just out. I haven't read that. I read the original in the late 90s. I doubt they've ruined it, but just in case.) [1] http://classicprose.com/ http://classicprose.com/ with excerpts from the book here: http://classicprose.com/csx.html http://classicprose.com/csx.html
- samevisions 16y agoVery interesting, especially for people like me ( English is not my mother language ) these basics are useful to build a strong knowledge about Writing.