Comments on: Plain English Campaign’s latest “Golden Bull” awards http://www.badlanguage.net/plain-english-campaigns-latest-golden-bull-awards How to communicate Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:02:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Uncommon Knowledge: free alternative business and technology knowledge to save you time and money. » Improve your speaking and writing through storytelling: part 1. http://www.badlanguage.net/plain-english-campaigns-latest-golden-bull-awards#comment-20931 Uncommon Knowledge: free alternative business and technology knowledge to save you time and money. » Improve your speaking and writing through storytelling: part 1. Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:03:09 +0000 http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=324#comment-20931 [...] One more important point: don’t create unnecessary flourishes in your writing or you’ll end up drowning in them. Keep it simple and just write you mean. [...] [...] One more important point: don’t create unnecessary flourishes in your writing or you’ll end up drowning in them. Keep it simple and just write you mean. [...]

]]> By: Nancy Friedman http://www.badlanguage.net/plain-english-campaigns-latest-golden-bull-awards#comment-20079 Nancy Friedman Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:57:17 +0000 http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=324#comment-20079 I remember reading long ago that legal language is full of tautologies like cease and desist, law and order, free and clear, to have and to hold, fit and proper, and will and testament because of the conflict between legal systems after the Norman invasion of 1066. In most of those word pairs, one of the words is an old English word and the other is Latin/French. Rather than choose one language over another, the English legal system let both have their day in, well, court. There's an interesting discussion of legal English at http://www.dhlaw.de/eng/elt/manuscript.pdf. I remember reading long ago that legal language is full of tautologies like cease and desist, law and order, free and clear, to have and to hold, fit and proper, and will and testament because of the conflict between legal systems after the Norman invasion of 1066. In most of those word pairs, one of the words is an old English word and the other is Latin/French. Rather than choose one language over another, the English legal system let both have their day in, well, court. There’s an interesting discussion of legal English at http://www.dhlaw.de/eng/elt/manuscript.pdf.

]]> By: Schizohedron http://www.badlanguage.net/plain-english-campaigns-latest-golden-bull-awards#comment-19665 Schizohedron Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:48:56 +0000 http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=324#comment-19665 Andrew: Could it mean "Cease [stop doing it right now] and desist [don't do it in the future]"? I'm not going to delve into the <i>Necronomicon</i>–like depths of <i>Black's Law Dictionary</i> to verify it; my sanity is frayed enough! Andrew: Could it mean “Cease [stop doing it right now] and desist [don't do it in the future]“? I’m not going to delve into the Necronomicon–like depths of Black’s Law Dictionary to verify it; my sanity is frayed enough!

]]> By: Andrew Denny http://www.badlanguage.net/plain-english-campaigns-latest-golden-bull-awards#comment-19587 Andrew Denny Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:00:12 +0000 http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=324#comment-19587 Perhaps you are right, Matthew. But I have come across quite a few examples from the Plain English Campaign's 'rogues' gallery' that misunderestimate, so to speak, the writer's original intention. For example, in its early days I seem to recall the PEC criticised the term 'user friendly', telling people to use 'easy to use'. Similarly in WW2 Winston Churchill execrated 'top secret', insisting on 'most secret'. Of course, these weren't convoluted passages like the example you give. But often, as with legalese, the convoluted phrase is there to cover every option. For example, 'cease and desist' - doesn't ceasing something automatically include desisting? Perhaps you are right, Matthew. But I have come across quite a few examples from the Plain English Campaign’s ‘rogues’ gallery’ that misunderestimate, so to speak, the writer’s original intention.

For example, in its early days I seem to recall the PEC criticised the term ‘user friendly’, telling people to use ‘easy to use’. Similarly in WW2 Winston Churchill execrated ‘top secret’, insisting on ‘most secret’.

Of course, these weren’t convoluted passages like the example you give. But often, as with legalese, the convoluted phrase is there to cover every option.

For example, ‘cease and desist’ - doesn’t ceasing something automatically include desisting?

]]>