Steve Bennett wrote: > No, readability has much more to do with appropriate use of > vocabulary, sentence length and phrase construction. Correct grammar > that is unfamiliar to the audience decreases readability. Just like > referring to the "spit and image" of someone would be less readable > than the "spitting image". > Clearly, though, this is a cultural matter. "Readability" in this sort of sense is conditioned by the expectation that the written language is very close to the spoken language, for example, which is something for which you can find widely varying types of cases if you go to different languages. (It is hard to imagine this thread going the same way with French speakers, in particular.) Judging by airport novels, short words sell more books than literary language, and stylistic considerations are roughly nowhere. But I don't see that encyclopedias need to be written as "page-turners".
On the topic, "most known" occurs frequently in enWP, rather than "best known". I would change that. And, sadly, "more known" also is common, rather than "better known". I think for the latter one can speak frankly of a grammatical error: "known" is a participle rather than an adjective, while "well-known" is certainly an adjective, with comparative and superlative forms. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
