Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 92 of 92

Thread: Standard of English writing

  1. #81
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Standard of English writing

    I'm interested to hear y'all taking a strong stance against the use of subject-specific jargon such as "unsynthesised manifold".

    Will you be taking a similarly robust stance against the use of dance-specific jargon such as "leverage", "connection", "the one", "frame", and the "center point of balance"?

  2. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South
    Posts
    5,424
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    I'm interested to hear y'all taking a strong stance against the use of subject-specific jargon such as "unsynthesised manifold".

    Will you be taking a similarly robust stance against the use of dance-specific jargon such as "leverage", "connection", "the one", "frame", and the "center point of balance"?
    The key point here is that you need to consider your target audience when writing. If I was writing an article for fisherman's weekly about dancing, I wouldn't use the terms you mention without thoroughly explaining them. On a dance forum, you might expect to get away with it if you're lucky.

    Just as if I was writing for a very broad audience, such as a national newspaper, I would not assume that every reader would understand what "unsynthesised manifold" meant.

  3. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."
    To which I, as a professional communicator, can only say "***"??
    The problem with the sentence is that it is simply that is improperly constructed.

    "The move from a structuralist account (in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways) to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence and rearticulation - brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory (that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects) to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."

    Those simple changes make it much easier. Better still would have been to break it up into three sentences, but I can't actually be bothered to do this.

    The excuse offered above - that difficult concepts excuse difficult language - is utter b0ll0cks. If you are making a difficult argument it behooves you to use the plainest and simplest language possible.

    It should always be remembered, however, that the target audience may require particular language and construction. No point in my explaining 'estoppel' to a fellow lawyer, though if I was writing for yoose mugs it would be insulting to use the word without explanation. Except in this paragraph, where it is used only as demonstration.

  4. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gav View Post
    Just as if I was writing for a very broad audience, such as a national newspaper, I would not assume that every reader would understand what "unsynthesised manifold" meant.
    Surely it refers to the noise coming out of a real exhaust, as opposed to the ersatz version produced by a Moog?

  5. #85
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    I'm interested to hear y'all taking a strong stance against the use of subject-specific jargon such as "unsynthesised manifold".

    Will you be taking a similarly robust stance against the use of dance-specific jargon such as "leverage", "connection", "the one", "frame", and the "center point of balance"?
    Ah, but that's why we have a glossary - to explain obscure terminology.

    (And feel free to suggest additions to it )

    If the Guardian came with a glossary, I'd have no problems in them using any terminology they felt appropriate. Otherwise, they should ensure that content is readable with less assumptions about their readership. Apart from the poor writing, the Grauniad displayed poor (non-existent) copy-editing ability.

    As it is, GG comes across as a humourless, thin-skinned and ineffectual snob, with little basic understanding of the audience she's writing for, or indeed empathy for that audience.

  6. #86
    Juju
    Guest

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Better still would have been to break it up into three sentences...
    God, yes. If someone had given that to me for marking I'd be all over it with the red pen.

  7. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Standard of English writing

    This is a forum directed at people with some interest in dance, including complete beginners. In the same way, Germaine Greer's article was directed at the readers of the Guardian Arts supplement - presumably these are people with some interest in art. Those with no interest in art will presumably skip the section, just as those with no interest in dance don't hang out here much.

    Incidentally, Germaine Greer did elaborate at some length on what she meant by that sentence in the article in question. Judge for yourself if it was sufficient: here it is in full:
    http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...929113,00.html

  8. #88
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    This is a forum directed at people with some interest in dance, including complete beginners. In the same way, Germaine Greer's article was directed at the readers of the Guardian Arts supplement - presumably these are people with some interest in art. Those with no interest in art will presumably skip the section, just as those with no interest in dance don't hang out here much.
    And clearly, almost no-one who read the supplement understood it. Unless a comprehensive understanding of Kant-ian philosophy is a pre-requisite for understanding an article about art in a national newspaper, I stand by the claim that she grossly mis-understood her audience.

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Incidentally, Germaine Greer did elaborate at some length on what she meant by that sentence in the article in question. Judge for yourself if it was sufficient: here it is in full:
    http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...929113,00.html
    Errr, doesn't the very fact that she needed to write another article to explain what she meant in the first article, imply that the first article wasn't clear? Or am I missing something?

    Oh, and whilst I'm on a "yes prime minister" kick, here's another quote relevant to the discussion:

    Sir Humphrey: ...the precise correlation between the information you communicated, and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
    Jim Hacker: Epistemological, what are you talking about?
    Sir Humphrey: You told a lie.
    Jim Hacker: A lie?
    Sir Humphrey: A lie.
    Jim Hacker: What do you mean, I told a lie?
    Sir Humphrey: I mean you ... lied. Yes I know, this is a difficult concept to get across to a politician. You ... ah yes, you did not tell the truth.
    Who needs Wikipedia when you've got Sir Humphrey...

  9. #89
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    Incidentally, Germaine Greer did elaborate at some length on what she meant by that sentence in the article in question.
    I'd like to nominate myself for unclear communication. Ugh.

    1. Here's a message for the art mafia in their black Bentleys: the really good stuff is uncollectable - original article for Guardian Arts
    2. The Plain English Campaign have given me a 'Golden Bull' award. Well, they can stuff it - response to the Golden Bull award

    In the first article, Germaine elaborates at some length on the "manifold" sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    And clearly, almost no-one who read the supplement understood it. Unless a comprehensive understanding of Kant-ian philosophy is a pre-requisite for understanding an article about art in a national newspaper...
    I don't understand the basis on which you claim that almost nobody who read the supplement understood it. Has there been a survey?
    To understand the original article you don't need to have a comprehensive understanding of Kant-ian philosophy. Read it for yourself. The "manifold" sentence is not required for an understanding of the underlying point being made.

  10. #90
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    In the first article, Germaine elaborates at some length on the "manifold" sentence.
    Hmmm, reading through the article, I admit some of it's OK.

    But that one phrase just sticks out like a sore thumb - what's wrong with "everything else", or "background" instead? Why use such an incomprehensible jargon-y buzzword? It's nuts.

    So instead of "The first attribute of the art object is that it creates a discontinuity between itself and the unsynthesised manifold", why not just say something like "Art must stand out from the background"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    I don't understand the basis on which you claim that almost nobody who read the supplement understood it. Has there been a survey?
    Based on reading the 2,000 comments on that article mainly

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    To understand the original article you don't need to have a comprehensive understanding of Kant-ian philosophy. Read it for yourself. The "manifold" sentence is not required for an understanding of the underlying point being made.
    Yeah, fair enough. You've got me there - it's not as bad as I'd thought. But that phrase is dire beyond words, and her over-reaction is pretty pathetic too.

  11. #91
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    The problem with the sentence is that it is simply that is improperly constructed.
    that it is, it is, that is I like irony in the morning with my cereal.

  12. #92
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South
    Posts
    5,424
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Standard of English writing

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    that it is, it is, that is I like irony in the morning with my cereal.
    I can't stand irony, I just wear my clothes creased.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. At least the Evening Standard heard about Ceroc.
    By DavidB in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 19th-December-2005, 06:33 PM
  2. Great Improvement to Standard Ceroc Format
    By johnthehappyguy in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 21st-September-2005, 07:29 PM
  3. Writing an encyclopedia...
    By MartinHarper in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 4th-June-2005, 12:50 PM
  4. Travel Writing & other items....
    By Chicklet in forum Ceroc Scotland Book Club
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 20th-February-2005, 09:50 PM
  5. Standard moves involving steps
    By jiveoholic in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12th-August-2002, 08:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •