Quotation of the Day

Entries from December 1, 2005 - January 1, 2006

Ten writing tips

I know several of you have blogs of your own, but even if you don’t, you can learn something from Lyndon’s list of Ten Tips for writing a blog post. For example, he says "Write Less." This is vital if you’re writing e-mail, letters, reports, or whitepapers. Make your point using the fewest words you can. Cut clutter mercilessly. Your audience will thank you.

"Include bullet point lists." (As long as it makes sense to do so.) If you can structure some of your information as a bulleted or numbered list, do so. It helps people scan for key points.

There’s more good advice here, so go read the whole list

Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 at 01:33PM by Registered CommenterRoy Jacobsen in , | CommentsPost a Comment

Don't take the shortcut: "and/or"

When you write whatever it is you write, there will be times that you are tempted to use both and and or at the same time. The usual result of that temptation is and/or, a miserable little textual pushme-pullyu that isn’t able to make up its minds about what it actually is. So don’t use it.

Sentences with and/or don’t flow, don’t sound conversational, and are prone to ambiguity. Sir Ernest Gowers (author of The Complete Plain Words) put it like this:

It is always ugly, usually unnecessary and sometimes downright wrong. It is also discourteous, because it nearly always forces readers to read the sentence twice, which they would not have had to do if the writer had taken a little more trouble.

So when you find you’ve written something like "I like to have donuts and/or turnovers with my coffee," rewrite to spell out the alternatives clearly, like "I like to have donuts or turnovers or both with my coffee." It’s a bit more work for you, but it saves effort for your reader.

(And maybe you should cut back on the pastries, too.) 

Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 at 01:59PM by Registered CommenterRoy Jacobsen in | Comments1 Comment

Speaking a foreign language

Jargon and buzzwords. I’ve written about them before, saying that they can be useful if—and this is a very big if—you’re using them to talk to people who understand what they mean. Jennie Robinson says the same thing:

 "…just like shorthand notes, buzzwords are part of a symbolic language. Unfortunately, this means that they do not carry any inherent meaning or communicate concepts reliably to people who don’t understand that language. Shorthand is eventually transcribed to longhand, and buzzwords lose their sting. The utility of compact expression is short-lived."

All too often, jargon is used to obscure, and not reveal.

Big biz wraps the most basic concepts in parameters and paradigms, and suffocates brilliant (but simple) ideas in flashy show-off campaigns. They re-brand and repackage old or weak products to revitalize sales.

Strip out the jargon, the corporate-speak, the buzzwords. Learn to connect with people using plain, simple, clear English. You’ll catch your audience’s attention like a cool breeze on a stifling day.

Read more:  Resurrect Your Writing, Redeem Your Soul

Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 at 01:04PM by Registered CommenterRoy Jacobsen in | CommentsPost a Comment

A Christmas gift for you

It’s got Ebenezer Scrooge, grammar, and chickens, all rolled into one. What more could you ask for?

Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 at 10:30PM by Registered CommenterRoy Jacobsen in , | CommentsPost a Comment

Plain English Campaign awards for 2005

The Plain English Campaign has announced their awards for clear use of English for 2005. Along with recognizing those individuals and organizations who made exemplary use of clear language, they also give out Golden Bull awards for the worst gobbledygook, and the probably-not-coveted Foot in Mouth award for the most baffling quote by a public figure.

This year’s Golden Bull award winners included the Australian Taxation Office, who gave the Down-Under public this gem of obfuscation:

For the purpose of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:
a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and
b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:

i) having happened at a particular time; and

ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:
i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or
ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).

Got that? In other words, "Don’t muddle things by talking about facts; we’re going to do what we bloody well want to."

Read more about the Plain English Campaign awards.

Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 at 10:00AM by Registered CommenterRoy Jacobsen in , | CommentsPost a Comment
Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next 5 Entries