2 ms·

According to this article, it seems that the way to convert 'rich' language into 'plain' language is to split it into lots and lots of small 'subject-verb-objec

According to this article, it seems that the way to convert 'rich' language into 'plain' language is to split it into lots and lots of small 'subject-verb-object'-style sentences. [presses 'p'] This is an article. It has language. The language is 'rich'. 'Rich' language can be converted to 'plain' language. 'Rich' language has sentences. 'Plain' language has sentences too, but they are smaller. 'Plain' sentences usually look like "I do something", e.g. "George eats fruit". A 'rich' sentence can be split into 'smaller' sentences. 'Rich' sentences can be split into smaller 'plain' ones that look like "George eats fruit". Hesitation. I am being honest. Do I fully agree, or not? I am not sure! More hesitation. [unpresses 'p'] Hm ... I'm not sure if I fully agree or not to be honest...

tpoacher 5y ago
Sorry, fully aware I'm being unnecessarily reductive and possibly slightly rude here, but you get what I mean ... :p
Rayhem 5y ago
> Hm ... I'm not sure if I fully agree or not to be honest... The comments here seem to agree, but I'm not sure, either. I think there's merit to simplifying the structure like this, but, at the risk of projecting my own brain onto the population, these small "bullet point" sentences eliminate a lot of the _flow_ that I depend on to connect ideas together. Variety in the sentence structure, particularly length, keeps things novel enough that I don't get sucked into reading "automatically" (where I've technically read the words but digested none of them), and connecting words like because, moreover, thus, etc. give me clues about how the bullet points connect together. How one fact or statement follows from the previous.