Oh the scandals in those trashy British papers!

Ok, so this row isn’t as juicy as the ones in other British media outlets, but the battle over grammar in The Economist (see my earlier post) continues to rage:

Like, duh
SIR — David Legard used sarcasm to criticise The Economist for employing a popular phrase (“it’s sooo yesterday”) that flummoxed his language students (Letters, August 5th). But if he really does “appreciate excellent written English”, how can he not appreciate your use of humour? English constantly evolves and to anyone who thinks the language should be preserved in a state of petrified perfection I say: it ain’t gonna happen, dude.

Colin Webb
Perth, Australia

More concerns about The Economist‘s grammar

It seems I’m not the only person to have questions about The Economist‘s grammar. From the letters in the August 3, 2006 issue:

Like, er, awesome
SIR— The Human Genome Project is “sooo yesterday” (“A study with a lot of balls”, July 29th)? I mean, like, wow. My advanced language students use The Economist to appreciate excellent written English. Like, unreal. Perhaps we should switch to a different text? Like, Hello!?

David Legard
Singapore

More useless words to avoid

Here are some words that I delete almost every time I encounter them:

• Extensive
• Efficient
• Effective
• Relevant
• As appropriate
• Recognized
• Wide (as in “a wide variety”)
• Very
• Significant
• Actual

Why do I delete them? They add no meaning.

What’s the difference between saying, “Bill has extensive experience improving systems design” and “Bill has improved systems designs?”

Two extra words, which make the sentence less punchy.

Like the other words on the list, “extensive experience” is so ambiguous that it’s meaningless. Similarly, what’s the difference between “a recognized leader” and “a leader?” “Actual results” and “results?” “A very active trading day” and “an active trading day?”

Nothing, nothing, and nothing.

If you have a problem using extraneous words, contemplate the opposite: if you hanker to write that you have “relevant skills,” think if anyone would ever say his or her skills were “irrelevant.”

Your audience is busy; don’t subject it to words it doesn’t need.

For more information about words to avoid, read my post “We would like to thank…“

The Plain English Campaign: Fighting against gobbledygook

Recently I discovered the Plain English Campaign—”an independent group fighting for plain English in public communication. We oppose gobbledygook, jargon and legalese.” It’s a battle worth fighting.

If you’re looking to eliminate gobbledygook from your writing, check out the group’s page on how to write in plain English.

We would like to thank…

Well then why not just thank them?

Excess words plague most documents. Maybe it’s because writers usually are paid for their work and feel obliged to give their client as many words as possible, but it makes for a tedious read.

Some examples of words that you should rarely—if ever—use:

• To date
• Would like to
• As follows
• In their efforts to
• Currently
• Both
• It should also be noted
• Over time
• The fact
• In order
• When necessary
• As appropriate
• Include the following
• As the means
• In the process of
• For your information
• In an attempt to
• Please note

When you use one of those words or phrases, consider if it adds any meaning to what you’re trying to say. You’ll probably end up deleting it.

Why does brevity matter?

People are presented with scores of material to read. Do them a favor: keep it as short as possible without losing any meaning. And you’ll be doing yourself a favor too, as people will be more likely to read your product.

Don’t trust me? Then take it from this guy:

Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
—William Strunk, Jr., The Elements of Style