mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: peaty
User Name: peaty
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: Male
Joined: Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Last Visit: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 6:05:12 AM
Number of Posts: 215
[0.02% of all post / 0.07 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: can I say like this? is it understandable?
Posted: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:29:33 PM
Oh dear, I have ruffled a few feathers, haven't I?

I don't think my suggestions are dumbing down. Choosing the right world is actually an extremely difficult task. When I used to write technical documents as part of my job, I would discover after using readability measuring tools that my first drafts were inevitably at doctorate-level language. It took a lot of redrafting to bring this down to general-readership level. I don't think I ever drop my language down to Sun-readership level, but I do try to keep things simple nowadays.

On the particular choice of concerning, I do think it is a very stiff, formal, and obsolescent word. I don't slavishly follow everything recommended by the Plain English Campaign: of my two earlier reworkings, I do actually prefer supply to give, but I thought that I would be accused of double standards if I used the non-PEC word. Whistle But I do think that the aims of the PEC are extremely admirable, and I will continue to recommend them.

In the end, the OP was asking for our opinions. I have given mine, and I stick by them. YMMV.
Topic: of or for?
Posted: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44:05 AM
If the choice is only between of and for, I would go for of.

However, it depends on the context.

Are there any other terms being explained in the Explanation document? If so, you may want it to have an overall heading, followed by a subheading specifically for Statement of Claim, e.g.:

Explanation of terms

Statement of Claim
A Statement of Claim is....

The Issuer of a document is....

But if the Explanation document only explains the Statement of Claim, one might ask why it is a separate document, and why the explanation is not included in the base document.
Topic: can I say like this? is it understandable?
Posted: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:15:00 AM
shivanand wrote:
I see nothing wrong in the sentence!

I see much that is wrong: it is too opaque, it's expressed as a passive, and it unnecessarily repeats information and representation.

Romany wrote:'s a formal document so perhaps changing "information about" to "information concerning" would be a better way to go.

Just because it's formal, it doesn't need to be pompous. The Plain English Campaign specifically recommends that the word concerning should be replaced by about -- not the other way round!

ChrisKC wrote:
Would it be correct to capitalise the "I" in issuer?

I would say no, as it is not a proper noun.

For what it's worth, my rework is:
If you supply a document about the grounds for representation, you must also supply details about its issuer.
or even:
If you give us a document about the grounds for representation, you must also give us details about its issuer.
Topic: Battery/batteries
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:53:49 PM
Jagadeesh Bangalore wrote:

The types AA, AAA and D are each single cells, and thus cannot be termed as batteries.

While you are technically correct, common usage calls all of these cell types batteries. I have never heard anyone call them cells in the UK.
Topic: making a motion
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2014 6:52:40 AM
nima_persian wrote:
I am wondering the reason why there has been written "made a motion".

In a formal meeting, considered as a committee with a chairman, there are formal rules about procedure. Making a motion is one of the methods to introduce new business or to proceed with an action.

nima_persian wrote:
And, how is it possible to rewrite the italic part in another way?

It isn't. That is exactly how the proceedings of a formal meeting are recorded.
Topic: Is it wrong to repeat these words?
Posted: Friday, August 22, 2014 7:55:55 PM
As other commentators have said, the difference is in style rather that grammatical correctness.

Although I usually recommend reduced word counts, in these cases my own personal style would be to prefer 1a, with the addition of an Oxford or Harvard comma:

(1a) The new scientific technique allows me to examine the phenomenon more easily, to make accurate calculations, and to develop a new theory.

And I would add two extra tos into 2b, but I don't think a comma is needed:

(2b) This advanced book helps me to learn the latest theory of cognitive psychology and to visualize the structure of the human mind.

Topic: Why Give the Enemy Intel?
Posted: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:29:06 AM
Background from a British "citizen journalist" on the ground:
Topic: drift of the under-current
Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 7:00:31 AM
Slang and cant are hidden languages, or languages with secret hidden meanings. Under-currents is a metaphor for similar hidden meanings, as if hidden below the surface of water. Drift is just an expression of the movement of these metaphorical currents.
Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 5:22:44 AM
Halt used to have specific meanings in the transport sector in Britain. Many small unmanned railway stations were called halts if a train would stop there only on request. See Halt.

Major road intersections would have the following "Halt at Major Road Ahead" sign:

However, the word halt is now very seldom used. It has been superseded by STOP.
Topic: repurpose
Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:41:22 PM
Every enclosed discipline has it own jargon. The problem with business-speak is that its practitioners have to communicate with people in other disciplines to get real work done.