It is amusing that in the example of replacing "Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement.” by “Before we fixed our money problems.” the bad Latin words are replaced by other Latin words. ("fixed", "money", "problem" all have Latin roots.) Even the list of Anglo-Saxon words has a decidedly non-Anglo-Saxon word ("chair", via French from Latin).
What matters is not the origin of a word, but its modern usage. When you consider alternative ways to express a concept, use the words that a. convey the intended meaning with the necessary precision (Clarity), b. are commonly used (Simplicity) and c. result in short sentences (Brevity).
So I agree with the principles the author recommends, but I disagree with the examples. I find all three principles broken throughout the text, and although that might have been deliberate, it certainly doesn't feel like it.
Yes - when I was learning Spanish I was told that the exceptions to the la -a rule (i.e. words that end with "a" usually are feminine) are from Greek. For example, "el problema", "el sistema"
If you want to see a bordering-on-the-insane effort at producing an English variant free of latin and greek influences, look up Anglish: http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Main_leaf
I really like your reductive toward clarity, simplicity and brevity. But it feels like it might be one of those venn diagrams (cost, quality, time - pick two). Getting two of those is difficult, but all three is.. rare.
And French! E.g. John Searle's comment on Michel Focault,
> 'Don't be ambiguous', 'don't be too wordy, be brief', 'be orderly' and 'avoid obscurity' are the four Maxim's of manner. And I think those are frequently violated. In fact, there are certain schools of philosophy---not once I'm sympathetic with---where they are more or less systematically violated. I don't know if I've told you this story but I once had a conversation with a famous French philosopher who's a friend of mine and I said to him "Why the hell do you write so badly, pourquoi écris-tu si mal", and he said, "Look, if I wrote as clearly as you do people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously. You know, they would think it's childlike and naive." [...] In France you got to have 10% incomprehensible otherwise people won't think it's deep. (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_a...)
I think this is one of the great contributions of the anglophone academic sphere, the idea that you should try to aim to be easy to understand.
But, in the article, the "bad examples" he gave, some real people wrote them. If you had to write back to such people with "bare" English, wouldn't they judge you as "childlike and naive" too?
Isn't it necessary to adapt your phrasing to your target?
(I thought it worked this way in any language)
A friend once asked me to translate a letter he had written to a US company about some equipment of his that needed maintenance. I quickly realized the main difference between Portuguese and English: in Portuguese, you write in a very roundabout way and in English you are straight to the point.
So, if I had translated that letter word by word, it would go something like this:
Dear Sir,
I bring to you, by way of this letter, knowledge of the defects that have befallen the equipment I purchased in...
In French the written language can be quite stilted, with a lot of set phrases and expressions you are supposed to know especially if you are penning administrative requests. I wonder if it's the same in Portuguese and other romance languages.
That's a big problem in translation: The writer imbues the script with cultural influence from their native language, and the translator has to compensate for that and adapt it to the target language. For example, the literal Greek, "I told him to bring me some water" would be translated in English as "I asked him to bring me some water", as the Greek "told" is much less strong than what it sounds in English, and is more like "ask" in meaning.
as a speaker of few European languages, it's considered rude to be straight to the point, it's like you are ordering someone to do something, while you should be politely asking them to do it, even if it's their job and business communication should be kept formal, we are not friends after all
personally i have no problem with straight people, but some people care more about form than content
"I would like" give them feeling of choice, like they can decide not to deal with your problem, although they have to, but you at least pretend they have some choice.
> Don’t say anything in writing that you wouldn’t comfortably say in conversation. Writing is talking to someone else on paper or on a screen.
While true, doesn't this ignore the concept of styles and related stuff? And doesn't every word has its own distinct flavor, that may subtly imply something? Like saying "individual" with a certain emphasis on the word, may put some stress on the aspect of individuality (maybe I'm wrong about English, but it surely works like this in my native language).
> My Spanish-speaking students must be given the bad news that those long sentences will have to be cruelly chopped up into short sentences with short nouns and short active verbs that drive the story forward. What’s considered “good writing” in Spanish is not “good writing” in English.
As a native Spanish speaker, I disagree: Unnecessarily long sentences are considered just as bad in Spanish as they are in English. The average Spanish sentence is a little longer than the average English sentence, but that's only because the average Spanish word is a little longer than the average English word.
I have no knowledge of Spanish, but I think your comment is spot on. I think the author of this article is wrong that things like simplicity, well-placed verbs, and economy are unique to English. The students from other language cultures who claim otherwise likely have a very distorted view of their own language.
Good verbs are like a universal principle of good language, as is the one thought per sentence rule. These rules might need to be tweaked - perhaps, for example, simple clauses can be strung together into a single sentence as dependent and independent clauses more easily in one particular language, but the universal part is then the simple clause with a good verb. These universal principles of good writing are like the foundation of the house - they have to be in place - , and everything else, like nice adjectives, proverbs, etc. are ornamental. The author's students are confusing the ornaments of their languages for the foundation.
I can't take these things seriously when they say stuff like "It’s not as musical as Spanish, or Italian, or French, or as ornamental as Arabic, or as vibrant as some of your native languages."
The classic fetishism of Romance languages and exoticization of everything else is alive and well.
What matters is not the origin of a word, but its modern usage. When you consider alternative ways to express a concept, use the words that a. convey the intended meaning with the necessary precision (Clarity), b. are commonly used (Simplicity) and c. result in short sentences (Brevity).
So I agree with the principles the author recommends, but I disagree with the examples. I find all three principles broken throughout the text, and although that might have been deliberate, it certainly doesn't feel like it.