In Washington (Tinman? Do you know about this?) the average person finds it hard to understand state government forms because of the acronyms, jargon and legalese that routinely pervade them. So...their governor ordered all state agencies to adopt "plain talk" principles. More than 2,000 state employees have attended classes on writing letters, announcements, and documents in everyday language.

So...words like abeyance, cease, and utilize are out, being replaced by suspension, stop, and use. They've had successes with this. For example, by rewriting one letter, the Department of Revenue tripled the number of businesses paying a "use tax," the widely ignored equivalent of sales tax on products purchased out of state. That added an extra $800,000 over 2 years to the department.

Here's a good example:

Before: We have been notified that you did not receive the State of Washington warrant listed on the attached Affidavit of Lost or Destroyed Warrant Request for Replacement, form F242.
After: Have you cashed your L&I check yet? The state Treasure's Office has informed us that a check we sent you has not been cashed.

I wouldn't have known what they meant in that before letter.

Since 1979 we have had n organisation in the UK called the Plain English Campaign" - http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ They campaign against gobbledygook and poor language use and have had some measure of success (except with the legal profession, of course).

Every year they have a " Foot in Mouth" award, which this year was won by Naomi Campbell.

No ideas, please, we're the Plain English Campaign

I have nothing against clear writing, but I wouldn't call perfectly normal English sentences "gobbledygook". There's nothing nonsensical about that example.

I agree to a certain extent, gooofy. Why on earth they gave their award to Naomi Campbell I don't understand. Her comment is crystal-clear. Stupid, perhaps, but pellucid. Whilst I agree that they have done an excellent job in persuading officialdom to write clearer prose, there is the danger that they are trying to cover too broad a field and preventing original writing or speaking from being appreciated. I wonder what they make of some of Shakespeare's more impenetrable stanzas?

They should stick more closely to their original remit and stop trying to dumb down everything that is written or uttered.

First of all, I titled the thread this way because that was the title of the article (in some Orlando paper).

quote:

I have nothing against clear writing, but I wouldn't call perfectly normal English sentences "gobbledygook". There's nothing nonsensical about that example.

What do you mean by "that example?" Mine or yours? I do think the example I quoted was nonsensical.

Whilst I agree that the Language Log quotes are understandable, did everyone here understand my example? I don't think most people would. The fact is, as with anything else, there is moderation. I surely agree with both Gooofy and Arnie that our language would become quite boring if we only used simple words. However, in some cases (such as the one I quoted) the writing can easily be described as "gobbledygook."

Here is another great example from that article:

Before: If you do not wish to purchase 12 month gross weight at the time of renewal, please contact your license agent to determine the fees due for the number of months you wish to purchase. If you are not sure that purchasing 12 months is a good choice for you, please discuss the options with your license agent before purchasing your tabs.
After: To license for less than 12 months, contact a vehicle licensing office to determine the amount due.

This one I understand, at least, but it's a bit verbose, don't you think?

Perhaps I should contact Language Log about that first example to see if he agrees that it actually is "gobbledygook."

Kalleh, I was perhaps unfairly conflating the Plain English Campaign and the article you were quoting. However, to be honest, I'm sceptical about your first example. I don't think the before and after letters mean the same thing.

In the second example, the second letter is definitely better. I'm a technical writer, I write user manuals for the general public, and generally I try to use as simple language as possible. There is a place for technical jargon, but that place is often not in documents aimed at the general public.

quote:

Why on earth they gave their award to Naomi Campbell I don't understand. Her comment is crystal-clear. Stupid, perhaps, but pellucid.

As I understand it, the foot in mouth award is for a stupid statement, not an unclear or jargon-laden one. Naomi Cambell's, statement was stupid - she opened her mouth and put her foot in it, in other words.

quote:

I surely agree with both Gooofy and Arnie that our language would become quite boring if we only used simple words.

I have nothing against the use of unusual or complex words as and when they can add something to communication.

But it's quite possible to write and speak very impressively and convincingly using nothing but the simplest of words.

Just listen to any one of Churchill's wartime speeches.

quote:

the foot in mouth award is for a stupid statement, not an unclear or jargon-laden one

Precisely. What has that got to do with the Plain English Campaign?

quote:

Kalleh, I was perhaps unfairly conflating the Plain English Campaign and the article you were quoting. However, to be honest, I'm sceptical about your first example. I don't think the before and after letters mean the same thing.

I'm not skeptical about that one. It is pure, inpenetrable fog. Of course, since we, the readers, cannot see the "warrant" listed on the attached form, there's no way any of us can tell if that one was even 5% pellucid. Personally, I've never heard of a check being referred to as a warrant before. I thought warrants only had to do with arrests!

I also could only vaguely decipher meaning in the LL example. The phrase "it's all to play for" is confusing to my American ear. I guess it must mean that the door is open to any possibility except the status quo, but I had to read the translation in the next paragraph to be sure of that.

Three cheers for the Plain Englishers!

WM

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
What do you mean by "that example?" Mine or yours? I do think the example I quoted was nonsensical.

I mean your example. This one:

quote:

Before: We have been notified that you did not receive the State of Washington warrant listed on the attached Affidavit of Lost or Destroyed Warrant Request for Replacement, form F242.
After: Have you cashed your L&I check yet? The state Treasure's Office has informed us that a check we sent you has not been cashed.

The "before" letter is not nonsensical. It is a well-formed English sentence. However, it seems to be referring to something completely different than what the "after" sentence is referring to. When I said I was skeptical about this, I meant that I thought whoever wrote the piece you were quoting might have made a mistake and mixed up the letters.

quote:

Precisely. What has that got to do with the Plain English Campaign?

Nothing directly - but it seems a harmless enough exercise that probably attracts attention and support for the cause.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Nothing directly - but it seems a harmless enough exercise that probably attracts attention and support for the cause.

I don't see the point of it. We all say silly things. It seems to me that what they are implying is that normal, everyday speech is not plain English.

quote:

I don't see the point of it. We all say silly things. It seems to me that what they are implying is that normal, everyday speech is not plain English.

I think the point they are trying to make is that those in the public eye should be more careful when they speak.

But I don't think there's any implication that every "foot in mouth" utterance is necessarily gobbleygook.

Goofy, Tinman is from Washington, and I will contact him to see if he can verify that first statement that you are skeptical about. If, indeed, they meant by that first statement what they say in the "improved version," I would disagree with you when you say it's "not nonsensical." Surely if no one can understand its meaning, it is nonsensical. Remember, just because a sentence is "well-formed" doesn't mean it can't be nonsensical: "The tooth and paper walked down the road, eating the fire along the way." That sentence is perfectly formed, but quite nonsensical.

And to think I thought the subject of this thread was a no-brainer.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Here is the last example they gave:

Before: Specific to the CO2 mitigation program, Ecology recommends that the reviewing authority assure compliance with the approved mitigation plan on an annual basis, unless project circumstances indicate that a more or lesss frequent compliance review is appropriate.

After Reviewing authorities conduct annual reviews to assure compliance with the mitigation plan.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Goofy, Tinman is from Washington, and I will contact him to see if he can verify that first statement that you are skeptical about. If, indeed, they meant by that first statement what they say in the "improved version," I would disagree with you when you say it's "not nonsensical." Surely if no one can understand its meaning, it is nonsensical. Remember, just because a sentence is "well-formed" doesn't mean it can't be nonsensical: "The tooth and paper walked down the road, eating the fire along the way." That sentence is perfectly formed, but quite nonsensical.

Sure, but even that sentence is not nonsensical in the right context. If I received a letter from the government that said that, I would wonder. But the sentence under discussion presumably makes sense in context:

We have been notified that you did not receive the State of Washington warrant listed on the attached Affidavit of Lost or Destroyed Warrant Request for Replacement, form F242.

This sentence, which I picked at random from a novel I'm reading, is just as nonsensical as the sentence under discussion:

"Velocidad maxima, I think.." Jerry murmured.

In both cases, there presumably is a context that explains what the sentence means.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

Before: Specific to the CO2 mitigation program, Ecology recommends that the reviewing authority assure compliance with the approved mitigation plan on an annual basis, unless project circumstances indicate that a more or lesss frequent compliance review is appropriate.

After Reviewing authorities conduct annual reviews to assure compliance with the mitigation plan.

The second sentence does not convey the same points as does the first. Missing are the ideas of recommendation and of a variable time period for review.

I'm not saying that the first sentence could not be better put; simply that the suggested re-write does not do the job adequately.

That's the same problem I have with the first example.

Now I think I understand what Kalleh's saying: if the two letters are supposed to mean the same thing, then the first one doesn't make sense. But that's exactly why I think they don't mean the same thing.

The first letter is talking about a warrant that the recipient requested but did not receive.

The second letter is talking about a cheque that the recipient did not cash.

I agree with you, Richard, that in the third example the improved version seems different from the original version.

I don't understand, at all, the original version of the first example. If its meaning is identical to that in the improved version, I am even more perplexed. For those reasons I consider it nonsensical. If there is an explanatory "context," perhaps it would make more sense. For me, there would need to be a lot of explanation!

I am awaiting Tinman's response. I heard there was a major storm in Washington, and I hope all is well with Tinman.

Tinman got back to me, and there was a missing sentence in the "before" example that made it a lot more clear. Still, I don't think many people think the word "warrant" means "check."

Before:
We have been notified that you did not receive a state of Washington warrant listed on the attached Affidavit of Lost or Destroyed Warrant Request for Replacement, form F242-026-000. The State Treasurer’s Office has informed us that the warrant is outstanding and has not been cashed as of today’s date.

After:
Have you cashed your L&I check yet?

The State Treasurer’s office has informed us that a check we sent you has not been cashed. Review the attached legal form. It will show the amount of the check, what it was for, and the date it was issued.

Gooofy, you were right, though maybe not 100%.

quote:

Still, I don't think many people think the word "warrant" means "check."

In UK English a warrant can mean "an order for exchange". It was commonly used in rail travel when a warrant could be issued to a potential traveller for exchange at the ticket office for a travel ticket. This document was only valid for the purpose sepcified which meant that the traveller had to use the warrant for that purpose and could not spend it on other items.

Typically rail warrants would be issued by firms and the forces to ensure that their employees travelled by rail as specified and did not, for example, use the fare money for beer and then try to hitch-hike.

A cheque could in this sense be a warrant and quite possibly the document issued by the State of Washington is known by them as a warrant. But why use internal jargon for a document which, so far as the recipients are concerned, is a cheque?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalleh:
QUOTE]
Perhaps Orwell sums it up well:
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink."

However, opaque language contains more than words that are unecessarily long, or worn out idioms. Circumlocutions and excessive generalisations are some of the contemporary blights on plain language. They are a burden in many blogs as well as in officalese.

Back in the days when I worked in a bank, we called most government cheques "warrants". There was some technical reason why they weren't cheques which I can't remember and can't be bothered to look up. I would imagine there is a similar reason why the state of Washington's payment orders are called warrants.

quote:

However, opaque language contains more than words that are unecessarily long, or worn out idioms. Circumlocutions and excessive generalisations are some of the contemporary blights on plain language.

Pearce, I agree with you completely on that. I especially dislike generalizations, and I agree that some unnecessarily long words are very precise, such as "ultracrepidarian."

I think it's a pity to toss words like "utilize," "abeyance" and "cease," as Washington has mandated.

As for the use of "warrant" for "check," perhaps you British posters would understand it, but I bet 99.99% of Americans wouldn't.

quote:

There was some technical reason why they weren't cheques which I can't remember and can't be bothered to look up.

I wonder whether it had anything to do with Stamp Duty. You will remember that this was once payable on all cheques (2d, I seem to recall) but not on warrants.

It's something to do with their not being bills of exchange. In theory, anyway, cheques are fully negotiable and can be assigned to a third party. I have an idea that government warrants must be cashed by the payee and are not technically assignable.

That would also be the reason why they didn't attract stamp duty. It would be pretty silly for the government to be taxing itself, anyway. Not that stupities are unknown when the government has a hand in things ...