Semantics

[Jeremiah]

What about the simplicity of an important dictionary?
Or, what about, "the more you read the dictionary here the more you're convinced of the importance of a simple forum?"
Or, "the more you read the dictionary here the more you're convinced of the simplicity of an important forum?"
Or, "the more you read the importance here the more you're convinced of the simplicity of a forum dictionary?"
Or, "the more you convince the dictionary here, the more you're important to a simple forum?"

Etc.

Syntax - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Alceste]

Semantics are boring. I have a few pet peeves - stupid tactics based on semantics.

Reductionism: taking a complex philosophy (feminism, socialism, capitalism, etc) and refusing to address or accept any aspect or argument that doesn't appear in the dictionary definition of the word.

Disingenuousness: arguing that an obviously prejudicial, bias-laden, misleading, trollish term is "technically" correct because of the dictionary. ("Abortion is "technically" murder because murder means taking the life of another human being".)

Evasion: when backed into a corner, ignoring the substance of a post in order to argue about the meaning of a particular word used in it, the context and meaning of which is obvious.

 

[ChristineES]

I try to use the most simple language and words I can use so that everyone can understand what I am saying. I have been misunderstood so much in the past due to my wording (I think).

I suppose that some people use big words so they can sound more educated, but that is not always the case- some just happen to have extensive vocabularies.

 

[Revoltingest]

I try to use the most simple language and words I can use so that everyone can understand what I am saying. I have been misunderstood so much in the past due to my wording (I think).
I suppose that some people use big words so they can sound more educated, but that is not always the case- some just happen to have extensive vocabularies.

Your style works well.
It makes you one of the few posters in this thread who isn't committing irony.

 

[Jeremiah]

I try to use the most simple language and words I can use so that everyone can understand what I am saying. I have been misunderstood so much in the past due to my wording (I think).

I suppose that some people use big words so they can sound more educated, but that is not always the case- some just happen to have extensive vocabularies.

That is the best way to handle it really. No need to get fancy.

 

[Jeremiah]

ChristineES,

I have always appreciated how clean and easy your post are to read and you are a better writer than you may think. I feel some may just be trying a bit too hard and in doing so they make things more complicated than it has to be.

If you have never read it you might be interested in the book, The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White. This little book can really help improve writing proficiency.

Personally, one of my biggest problems is adding unnecessary words. So I spend a lot of time trimming the fat off my sentences.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I try to think it through from the reader's point of view, and make myself clear. I suspect I have about a 50/50 success rate on that, but my heart's in the right place.

Communication is actually about being understood, not writing the grandest sounding argument.

 

[Alceste]

I try to think it through from the reader's point of view, and make myself clear. I suspect I have about a 50/50 success rate on that, but my heart's in the right place.

Communication is actually about being understood, not writing the grandest sounding argument.

I like finding the right words for things. I don't worry whether they're too long or too short, too obscure or common, etc. I have been called out for using big, fancy words in casual conversation, but I can't help it. I read a lot. Books have lots of words in. You can't help but pick them up. I don't want to go around feeling like I'm supposed to be dumbing everything down for people.

 

[Jeremiah]

It is not about "dumbing everything down", it is about effective writing. Which, in my opinion, shows a higher proficiency than a big vocabulary.

 

[Copernicus]

It is not about "dumbing everything down", it is about effective writing. Which, in my opinion, shows a higher proficiency than a big vocabulary.

I agree that using clear language is not "dumbing down" content, but I'm not so sure it shows higher proficiency in language. It does take some skill to speak and write clearly, because you need to have a good sense of how the audience will respond to the language. Quite often, people use technical jargon and fancy expressions not to communicate more effectively, but to establish greater credibility with the listener.

 

[Jeremiah]

I agree that using clear language is not "dumbing down" content, but I'm not so sure it shows higher proficiency in language. It does take some skill to speak and write clearly, because you need to have a good sense of how the audience will respond to the language. Quite often, people use technical jargon and fancy expressions not to communicate more effectively, but to establish greater credibility with the listener.

I work for a bank and with some people I have to sound like a "banker" to build their confidence in me or they will not believe I know what I am talking about. However sometimes sounding like a "banker" is gonna have the opposite effect. Some people will feel you are just talking above their head and feel you don't really care about them. So they also lose confidence in you. You just have to know your audience and use jargon when it is appropriate. Keeping in mind that jargon does not always established better credibility with the listener.

If you are not taking your audience into consideration, than that is where it shows the lack of proficiency. Good writing is about finding that middle ground. These are public forums, filled with people from various different backgrounds and to some English is a second language. That is something to keep in mind when posting.

 

[ChristineES]

More than likely, any of us will be writing to more than one person, including but not limited to, children, people who only speak limited English (or whatever language you're writing in), people who may be mostly illiterate (due to learning disabilities), etc. I want to write so my target audience understands- all of them, not just some of them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

More than likely, any of us will be writing to more than one person, including but not limited to, children, people who only speak limited English (or whatever language you're writing in), people who may be mostly illiterate (due to learning disabilities), etc. I want to write so my target audience understands- all of them, not just some of them.

Yeah, that's how I feel about it. Actually I know a whole lot of big words, but I tend to use them only in emergencies.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree that using clear language is not "dumbing down" content, but I'm not so sure it shows higher proficiency in language. It does take some skill to speak and write clearly, because you need to have a good sense of how the audience will respond to the language. Quite often, people use technical jargon and fancy expressions not to communicate more effectively, but to establish greater credibility with the listener.

They sometimes also use technical jargon and fancy expressions to hide behind. Working in IT, I spend half my life acting as go between for technical folks and business/operational folks because I know enough about both to call ********.

Technical jargon and complex terminology is entirely appropriate when it is the only way of describing something (ie. to avoid dumbing down) or when the audience is likely to largely understand it (hopefully both). But any communication is audience-driven, else you're not communicating, you're just speaking.

 

[Copernicus]

I work for a bank and with some people I have to sound like a "banker" to build their confidence in me or they will not believe I know what I am talking about. However sometimes sounding like a "banker" is gonna have the opposite effect. Some people will feel you are just talking above their head and feel you don't really care about them. So they also lose confidence in you. You just have to know your audience and use jargon when it is appropriate. Keeping in mind that jargon does not always established better credibility with the listener.

That's true. One of my areas of expertise is in the clarification of technical language. I have worked with engineers to standardize vocabulary and simplify their writing style. It turns out that there is a tremendous amount of resistance to the use of plain language by some, because they feel a need to use language that establishes their authority and credentials as professionals. The problem is that not all readers are as proficient in English as we would like them to be, especially in an era of globalization. Quite often, the reader is technically competent in his or her native language but unfamiliar with the writer's choice of words. Good technical writers understand this, but most engineering documents are not written by those trained in technical writing skills.

 

[Alceste]

I've rewritten policy and public documents and forms in plain language myself, but when I'm speaking off the cuff or expressing my opinions here, whatever comes out comes out. I'm not going out of my way to use big words, but I'm not going out of my way to use simple ones either. Most of the time, I can guess the meaning of words I've never seen before from the context alone, so I assume everybody else can too.

There's a limit, of course. I've looked at some of the nonsense from the ID community, and it's completely clear to me that they are intentionally using sophisticated and technical language most of their readers will not understand to disguise the total lack of substance underpinning their arguments. The one perk of this approach is that every creationist on earth, however poorly educated they may be, now knows exactly what a "flagellum" is, and doesn't trip over the phrase "irreducible complexity".