All:
Methinks there be a flock of sheep who could do with a bit o' shearin' o' at
least a wee bit o' excess wool, yet a smidgen of rhetoric, if it illuminates
rather than benights the message, or even stimulates enquiry, could be a
more therapeutic than painful massage. If 'tis relevant, leave it in; if it
obscures, out w' 't.
The irony is that within the group, verbal floristics may well work some
magic, yet to the "outs" it excludes.
(My apologies, for example, for this example, of how, within a limited
group, rhetoric can work yet confound those, for example, for whom English
may be a second language and those who may be unfamiliar with a given
dialect. Still, within its limited sphere, word-play can add a certain
potency that "pure" phrasing might lack. The antidote for this is ENGAGEMENT
rather than argument, and the removal of expectations that a given statement
is the end rather than the beginning of communication.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <cien...@silvert.org>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell
It is interesting to see how scientific writing fits with these rules.
Consider (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active. This is
certainly not the case with modern scientific writing, but it used to be -
consider Newton's Principia, in which every proposition begins with "Dico"
(I say). Who uses the first person today? Who would write "I measured the
..."?
As for jargon, for which scientists are often blamed, it is a necessity to
defend us against a hostile press and political pressure. Remember Senator
Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards to scientists who got funding for
research that sounds ridiculous? Any scientist who applies for funding to
study the sex lives of wasps must be crazy - but to study reproductive
strategies of parasitoids of Brachonidae for biological control might get
through OK. I've seen one scientist pilloried for studying the Jerusalem
artichoke for biofuel, if only he had done his research on Helianthus
tuberosus!
Among themselves scientists don't usually abuse jargon. We refer to
gelatinous zooplankton as jellies, zooplankton in general as bugs. But
obscure English translations don't get used, we never refer to
Pleurobrachia
as "sea gooseberries".
Orwell's prescriptions are more the result of his personality than of his
literary skills. Some authors still write flowery or elegant prose, and
carry it off well. Others write in a succinct fashion like Hemingway, and
that is good too. But when the general public can only read Hemingway, we
are in real trouble.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Shevtsov" <jane....@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 4:57
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
And here are Orwell's prescriptions:
"(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you
are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if
you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright
barbarous."
Rules 2-5 lead to precisely the kind of oversimplification of language
that you worry about. I do not know what should be done about it or
even if it really is a problem. (The case can be made that your
reading comprehension skills should match the material you are
actually likely to encounter, not more challenging material that few
people write any more.) Still, it would be interesting to find out
what our colleagues in English departments think of the situation.
Jane
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.147/2628 - Release Date: 01/17/10
07:35:00
