Re: Simplified English (was Concordance Tools, Simplified

Subject: Re: Simplified English (was Concordance Tools, Simplified
From: "Wojcik, Richard H" <Rick -dot- Wojcik -at- PSS -dot- BOEING -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:14:43 -0700

Jill,

Poppy and I are both members of the industry panels that define and control
the AECMA Simplified English standard. Thanks very much for your
criticisms. They are appreciated. I'll respond to some of your remarks,
because some people on the list might be interested in how an industry
representative would defend the standard. People with no interest in
Controlled Languages or Simplified English should read no further. I'll
snip some material to reduce the size.
> ----------
> From: Jill Clay[SMTP:JILL_CLAY -at- NON-HP-PALOALTO-OM8 -dot- OM -dot- HP -dot- COM]
<...snip...>

> I have many, many examples of AECMA's weaknesses and ways that it
> forces the writer to be wordier and use less active, and sometimes
> passive, voice.
>
Our experience has been that Simplified English does not make documents
wordier, but it can force writers to make some sentences wordier in order to
get around the restrictions. This is easiest to show with examples where an
unapproved word has to be paraphrased. I am puzzled by your comments on the
passive. The standard forbids passive voice in procedures and discourages
it in descriptive writing (Rule 3.6). The vast majority of SE sentences in
our documents are in the active voice.

> Re: The one you commented on, forbidding use of "test" as a verb - I
> remembered incorrectly about the exact recommendation SE makes, but
> you reminded me. "Do a test" sounds terrible to me. It is not as
> direct or as active-voice as "Test the..." Any English speaker knows
> about the imperative form, and that rarely, if ever, do we begin a
> sentence with a singular noun. In other words, when would we begin a
> sentence with Test if it were NOT a verb? I cannot think of an
> instance. Tests, plural, can begin a sentence, but English speakers
> should know that Tests, plural, is a noun. There is no ambiguity,
even
> for translators, that I can see. A translator's job is to know the
> accepted construction of a sentence in the language s/he is
> translating from or to.
> In fact, "Do" as a verb is vague, and I should think it would "do a
> disservice" to translators to change "Test the ..." to "Do a test..."
>
Actually, the expressions "Do a test" and "Test..." (verb) are both active
voice. I take you to mean that "Do a test..." sounds wordier and less
direct. Simplified English has less than 200 verbs in the core vocabulary,
but writers can add new verbs under very restricted circumstances. This
restriction has something to do with ambiguity, but there is a better reason
for it here. The sentence "Test the container for leaks" is less specific
than "Do the leak test on the container." The reason is that "leak test"
would be a named procedure with an explicit description elsewhere in the
maintenance document. Note that "Do a test..." is also quite vague, but
writers seem less prone to use nouns as vague references to procedures.
They usually say what kind of test they are talking about. Verbs can save
you words, but they also give you the opportunity to leave out important
details.

<...>
> In Rule 2.2, discussing using hyphens to clarify noun clusters, SE
> actually recommends the following phrase.
> Main-gear inboard-door retraction-winch handle
>
> I can see how hyphens help clarify noun clusters, but writers should
> avoid having three in a row - I laughed when I read that one.
>
Actually, I cried. :-) This is a very controversial example. Some of us
in the industry argue that the example contradicts Rule 2.1--"Do not make
noun clusters of more than three nouns". This section has been marked by
the SE panel for revision. To be fair, though, you should note that
hyphenation is only one of two methods for "clarifying" long noun clusters.
The other is to explain the long cluster and then designate a shorter
(non-hyphenated) name for it. I always recommend to writers that they
prefer the 2nd method over hyphenation. Be aware, too, that these examples
taken from Rule 2.2 are supposed to be used for cases of nomenclature, not
names that the writer creates. That is, the hyphenation is supposed to help
readers parse long noun phrases that the writer is stuck with using. (The
SE Guide is not clear on this point--another reason for revising section
2.2.)

> In Rule 2.3, SE recommends this sentence:
> SOlvents used in these repairs can cause damage to paint.
>
> <my comment> It is more succinct to write:
> SOlvents used in these repairs might damage paint.
>
Actually, the sentence violates SE, much to my embarrassment, and I will
submit a Change Request to have it modified. The word "used" is not
approved in SE. I would want to reword the surrounding text so that you
could say "These solvents can cause damage to paint." If you wanted to be
less wordy here, you could just say "can damage". There is no reason to
prefer "might". The problem is that you aren't allowed the word "damage" as
a verb, only a noun. SE restricts verb-noun ambiguities, which are
rampant in English, because they really do cause difficulties for
non-English speakers. The price of that restriction is an extra word in
this sentence. (Remember that these sentences are instructions that go out
to every location in the world. We want to encourage predictability of
style, not just succinctness.)

> In Rule 4.2, SE recommends the following example, really:
> Warning: ... A pressurized system can cause injury to persons when
> they do work on it.
>
> <my comment>This example is especially bad! My rewrite would be "A
> pressurized system can cause injury." (some will prefer "might" to
> "can")
>
I don't particularly like the example, but I don't like your revision
either. I would like the writer to explain the nature of the danger better.
Warnings, by definition, refer to situations where people can be injured.
So it isn't helpful to use more words to explain the obvious. The purpose
of that recommendation was to revise an earlier sentence that had used the
elliptical expression "IF NOT, THIS CAN CAUSE..." Your criticism has
nothing to do with Rule 4.2, which admonishes writers not to use elliptical
expressions in an effort to meet the 20 word length limit on sentences.
(That is the intent of Rule 4.2, not the literal wording.)

> In Rule 4.3, here is a procedural list that SE recommends.
> When the landing gear retracts:
> 1) The door-operating bar on the leg touches and turns the latch.
> 2) This causes the roller to move...
> 3) The second roller holds the door...
>
> <my comment>The above is called unparallel construction. All bullets
> or steps must have the same sentence construction. For example, you
> could write
> 1) The ...bar ...turns the latch
> 2) The first roller moves...
> 3) The second roller holds the door...
>
First of all, the original text represents a perfectly parallel
construction--all declarative sentences. Usually, "unparallel construction"
refers to a mixture of grammatical styles, e.g. conjoining an infinitive and
a participle. This is an example of text that describes an operation. You
seem to want to leave out information. For example, your second step
invents the term "first roller" and fuzzes over the causal relationship,
which is the point of the explanation. The text is telling the reader how
the parts of the mechanism interact.

> There are so many other examples, and I'm too tired to list them and
> don't want to bore other list-readers with them. I will comment,
> however, that if easy translation is one goal, SE might want to add
> guidelines on the use of ambiguous words like "once" or "since" - in
> tech writing we say "when" or "after", or "because", respectively.>
>
Both "once" and "since" are covered in the SE Dictionary (Part 2 of the SE
Guide). Your advice is sound, but you should have checked the SE Dictionary
before giving it. :-) BTW, many of the rules and restrictions in SE are
exactly those that you would find in any good style guide on tech writing.

> The reason I am replying to the list in this instance is to see if
> others in the software industry will challenge and educate me. I will
> post no more to the list on this issue.
>
> Thank you
> Jill Clay
>
> PS Poppy, if you really want a full critique on this, I have a Word
> file I can send you. Let me know if you'd like me to send it.
>
Jill, we would love to have that Word file. And thank you, again, for your
comments, even though I took exception to many of them. We need this kind
of feedback. If you would like to write to a more appropriate venue on SE,
you could join the SE email list. Just send an email to:
majordomo -at- redwood -dot- rt -dot- cs -dot- boeing -dot- com
and put "subscribe simplified-english" (without quotes) in the body of the
email. This list isn't very active, but people on it will respond to
queries and criticisms.

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=


Previous by Author: Re: Strunk on the web is old and Whiteless
Next by Author: Re: Strunk and White
Previous by Thread: Re: Simplified English (was Concordance Tools, Simplified
Next by Thread: MT Summit VII Call for Registration


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads