3 ms·

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

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
  Distance is quite hard to judge but then your audience is people whose job/life generally depends on quantities. Technicians, Engineers and scientists are your general target and these are people who are more in tune with quantities than the general population as a whole. That said, there are three popular classes of units in use just in the "west": Metric, Imperial/American and rule of thumb. Then there are the other ones and the really odd other ones. For example a German pfund is not the same as a pound (lb) and looks plain weird in grammes. It is however, a small cauliflower with the stalk cut off (rule of thumb). A cm is roughly 2.54 times too small for normal use and a metre is too big to fit in your tool box. I'm a Brit BTW so I actually love metric unless I'm drinking, in which case I'll have a pint unless its wine (125 or 250ml). I seem to recall that Henry VIII (the one with six wives) ordered a standard King's English to be developed which is why we have the word church and not kirk or kerke or whatever etc. That was in C16th. So, your job has a long and illustrious history. It also has the same challenges. I can imagine that it would be tempting to try and end up with something like an Anglicised Esperanto but I think you should accept that your goal will never be perfect, nor ever finally achieved. It will save lives though and you must concentrate on that and not perfection. Good luck!
  - elless 5y ago
    Thank you! And yes, I agree with what you've said about measurements. Normally we would accompany something like "5 meters" with a real world comparison, which doesn't have to be perfect, but gives a point of reference. Perhaps for this specific group, a reference to another part they know about would be a good comparison. For pandemic restrictions we talked about being "not being so near to people that you can touch them" for example. Our real goal is to get people thinking about how to communicate to people from different places, cultures, and life experiences more effectively. Which is one that will never be completed, but I hope we can at least make some improvements.

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
Distance is quite hard to judge but then your audience is people whose job/life generally depends on quantities. Technicians, Engineers and scientists are your general target and these are people who are more in tune with quantities than the general population as a whole. That said, there are three popular classes of units in use just in the "west": Metric, Imperial/American and rule of thumb. Then there are the other ones and the really odd other ones. For example a German pfund is not the same as a pound (lb) and looks plain weird in grammes. It is however, a small cauliflower with the stalk cut off (rule of thumb). A cm is roughly 2.54 times too small for normal use and a metre is too big to fit in your tool box. I'm a Brit BTW so I actually love metric unless I'm drinking, in which case I'll have a pint unless its wine (125 or 250ml). I seem to recall that Henry VIII (the one with six wives) ordered a standard King's English to be developed which is why we have the word church and not kirk or kerke or whatever etc. That was in C16th. So, your job has a long and illustrious history. It also has the same challenges. I can imagine that it would be tempting to try and end up with something like an Anglicised Esperanto but I think you should accept that your goal will never be perfect, nor ever finally achieved. It will save lives though and you must concentrate on that and not perfection. Good luck!
- elless 5y ago
  Thank you! And yes, I agree with what you've said about measurements. Normally we would accompany something like "5 meters" with a real world comparison, which doesn't have to be perfect, but gives a point of reference. Perhaps for this specific group, a reference to another part they know about would be a good comparison. For pandemic restrictions we talked about being "not being so near to people that you can touch them" for example. Our real goal is to get people thinking about how to communicate to people from different places, cultures, and life experiences more effectively. Which is one that will never be completed, but I hope we can at least make some improvements.