4 ms·

It reminds me of ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, widely used in aircraft technical documentation by Boeing and Airbus. For easier understanding by tech

It reminds me of ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, widely used in aircraft technical documentation by Boeing and Airbus. For easier understanding by technicians, use of words are carefully controlled to reduce ambiguities. For example, instead of saying "before acceptance of unit, carry out the specified test procedure", you should write "before you accept the unit, you must do the specific test procedure." Also, the word "close" should only be used to mean "to move something to a position". Instead of writing "do not go close to the landing gear", one should write "do not go near the landing gear." It's a special-purpose language and not meant to be a general writing standard, but the basic idea is similar to this project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Technical_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Technical_English

gerdesj 5y ago
That looks like a great idea. It roots out wooly thinking and ambiguity. English is rather ... flexible. This standard does not really "simplify" English but really "codify" it - the standard needs a better name! "before acceptance" vs "before you accept": These are quite subtly different. The first form really means passivity (something is done to you) and the second implies activity (I do something). Now, both forms are routinely used to mean the same thing but the second is correct in this case. "carry out" vs "you must do": the first form only implies who does what. The second form spells out exactly who does what. Alas, the standard will always lose out. Trying to pick English words with fewer meanings is always going to fail (tap - lol!) near vs close is not a useful distinction. Near can mean light years depending on context but close nearly always means within arm reach, a hair' breadth or whatever, except when it doesn't. I think a better approach would avoid words like "close" or "near" - they are subjective. "Do not approach to within 5m of the landing gear" is objective and easy to understand. A formal risk assessment should surely find the right distance. In many fields of Engineering, as soon as you find yourself using wooly mensuration terminology instead of clearly defined terms, you are probably gearing up for a funeral.
- segfaultbuserr 5y ago
  > This standard does not really "simplify" English but really "codify" it - the standard needs a better name! It does "simplify" English by disallowing the use of difficult grammar. One should give instructions in active voice, with simple verb tenses, and avoid the use of present participles or gerunds. The codified dictionary also only uses a basic subset of English words, difficult vocabulary is avoided to increase legibility.
- jltsiren 5y ago
  > "carry out" vs "you must do": the first form only implies who does what. The second form spells out exactly who does what. It goes beyond that. "Carry out" is an idiom the reader may not be familiar with. It may confuse them because they don't know what is the concrete thing they are supposed to be carrying, and where the "out" is located in this context. Verb + direction idioms are one of the most difficult parts of English as a foreign language. The direction often changes the meaning of the verb in an arbitrary way, and even the direction itself is often arbitrary.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > "Carry out" is an idiom the reader may not be familiar with. Yeah: "How am I supposed to take the abstract concept of 'acceptance test' and lug / schlep / carry it out of the hangar into the fresh air outside???"
- elless 5y ago
  Hey! I'm one of the researchers that work on this topic. We think one of the powerful things about minimal languages is that they help people to think more clearly about what they want to say. Our main goal is the cross-translatability aspect, so we choose words and syntax which exist in the maximum number of languages for what we want to convey. We can't always be 100% cross-translatable (the foundation, NSM, is for that), but we can do what we can with the context and the intended audiences. In the example sentence, in Minimal English, we could say "Do not go near the landing gear. 5m is too close." This still has some problems (e.g. people aren't good at estimating distance) but the verb "go" is better than "approach". The comparison "too" isn't necessarily translatable, but it probably okay for this context.

gerdesj 5y ago

That looks like a great idea. It roots out wooly thinking and ambiguity. English is rather ... flexible. This standard does not really "simplify" English but really "codify" it - the standard needs a better name! "before acceptance" vs "before you accept": These are quite subtly different. The first form really means passivity (something is done to you) and the second implies activity (I do something). Now, both forms are routinely used to mean the same thing but the second is correct in this case. "carry out" vs "you must do": the first form only implies who does what. The second form spells out exactly who does what. Alas, the standard will always lose out. Trying to pick English words with fewer meanings is always going to fail (tap - lol!) near vs close is not a useful distinction. Near can mean light years depending on context but close nearly always means within arm reach, a hair' breadth or whatever, except when it doesn't. I think a better approach would avoid words like "close" or "near" - they are subjective. "Do not approach to within 5m of the landing gear" is objective and easy to understand. A formal risk assessment should surely find the right distance. In many fields of Engineering, as soon as you find yourself using wooly mensuration terminology instead of clearly defined terms, you are probably gearing up for a funeral.

segfaultbuserr 5y ago
> This standard does not really "simplify" English but really "codify" it - the standard needs a better name! It does "simplify" English by disallowing the use of difficult grammar. One should give instructions in active voice, with simple verb tenses, and avoid the use of present participles or gerunds. The codified dictionary also only uses a basic subset of English words, difficult vocabulary is avoided to increase legibility.
jltsiren 5y ago
> "carry out" vs "you must do": the first form only implies who does what. The second form spells out exactly who does what. It goes beyond that. "Carry out" is an idiom the reader may not be familiar with. It may confuse them because they don't know what is the concrete thing they are supposed to be carrying, and where the "out" is located in this context. Verb + direction idioms are one of the most difficult parts of English as a foreign language. The direction often changes the meaning of the verb in an arbitrary way, and even the direction itself is often arbitrary.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > "Carry out" is an idiom the reader may not be familiar with. Yeah: "How am I supposed to take the abstract concept of 'acceptance test' and lug / schlep / carry it out of the hangar into the fresh air outside???"
elless 5y ago
Hey! I'm one of the researchers that work on this topic. We think one of the powerful things about minimal languages is that they help people to think more clearly about what they want to say. Our main goal is the cross-translatability aspect, so we choose words and syntax which exist in the maximum number of languages for what we want to convey. We can't always be 100% cross-translatable (the foundation, NSM, is for that), but we can do what we can with the context and the intended audiences. In the example sentence, in Minimal English, we could say "Do not go near the landing gear. 5m is too close." This still has some problems (e.g. people aren't good at estimating distance) but the verb "go" is better than "approach". The comparison "too" isn't necessarily translatable, but it probably okay for this context.