
How to Write in Plain English - zackhsi
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/how-to-write-in-plain-english.html
======
gorgoiler
Writing clearly is like playing Tetris. Sentences should be presented with
clauses that drop down and slot together efficiently. At the earliest
available opportunity you drop in a block that completes the line and points
are won/made.

This can also make for rather dull writing and I appreciate the irony in this
paragraph:

 _> However, at first you may still find yourself writing the odd long
sentence, especially when trying to explain a complicated point. But most long
sentences can be broken up in some way._

Here we see the Tetris player drop a sequence of blocks leaving a 3x1 gap down
the left edge. Where are they going with this? More blocks stack up on the
middle and right, there are “bubbles” in the pile that are covered by squares
and there’s still that annoying gap on the left holding them back from
clearing. Time passes. The screen is now getting dangerously full.

Then they drop in a pair of 4x1 blocks that completes rows 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
The bubbles on rows 4 and 7 become exposed making a T shaped hole. The next
block to fall is a T shape. The screen clears, the sentence’s cognitive buffer
is flushed, and we move on to the next point.

~~~
nicbou
Don't make your readers hold parts of the sentence in their head. Reorder or
split sentences until it can be avoided. In other words, use a _really_ small
buffer.

"You must fill form 331 unless you are over 60 years old, in which case you
must fill form 445."

"You must fill form 331. If you are over 60 years old, you must fill 445
instead."

"If you are over 60 years old, you must fill form 445. Otherwise, you must
fill form 331."

You might have noticed that the last version is an if-else statement.

~~~
dgellow
> Don't make your readers hold parts of the sentence in their head.

Funny to read this as I'm learning German! In German the main verb of a
sentence has to be at the end depending on the context (e.g: if it is a
question, or following some prepositions such as "dass").

Let's say we want to build a question, it will be constructed this way:

1\. question marker (such as "Was", "Wo", "Warum", etc)

2\. subject

3\. other details regarding the subject (adjectives and others)

4\. the verb, with correct grammatical form depending on the subject

Something I find quite frustrating is that I have to keep in mind everything
about the subject during the entire duration of the sentence just to be able
to use the verb correctly. So because of this I always try to keep the
distance between a subject and the verb as short as possible when trying to
speak German, which results in very terse sentences that looks similar to what
you described.

My life partner speaks native German and doesn't even realize that she does
this buffering.

~~~
notahacker
A famously playful version of this is the first sentence of Kafka's
Metamophorphosis. The reader has the concept of Gregor Samsa waking in his bed
from uneasy dreams and then a monstrous vermin in their heads, and the verb
they're definitely not expecting to link this subject and object is
'transformed into'...

It's a pain for the translator to pull off the same effect in most other
languages.

~~~
pmoriarty
That reminds me of this story:

 _An American woman visiting Berlin - intent on hearing Bismarck speak -
obtained two tickets for the Reichstag visitors ' gallery and enlisted an
interpreter to accompany her._

 _Soon after their arrival, Bismarck rose and began to speak. The interpreter,
however, simply sat listening with intense concentration. The woman, anxious
for him to begin translating, nudged and budged him, to no avail._

 _Finally, unable to control herself any longer, the woman burst out: "What is
he saying!?" "Patience, madam," the interpreter replied. "I am waiting for the
verb."_

------
aazaa
The article doesn't mention the way that word placement changes the meaning of
sentences. From a video I recently saw but can't recall, consider these
sentences:

\- Although John is a nice guy, he beats his dog.

\- Although John beats his dog, he's a nice guy.

\- John is a nice guy, but he beats his dog.

\- John beats his dog, but he's a nice guy.

These are all plain English sentences, but will be interpreted quite
differently. For the moment, try to set aside the moral judgement on dog
beating and consider what the author's opinion of John is in each case.

For example, readers tend to latch onto the last part of a sentence. So
putting the nice guy part last tends to support John. Whereas putting the dog
beating last tends to undermine John.

Same facts, almost the same words, but different messages.

~~~
wlll
I'm struggling to read those as being different. UK English reader.

~~~
zimpenfish
Native English UK Reader here and whilst the words have essentially the same
meaning, I would definitely have a different take away from these two:

\- John is a nice guy, but he beats his dog.

\- John beats his dog, but he's a nice guy.

For me, the difference is that the second one carries more of an implication
that the speaker doesn't consider dog beating all that problematic since even
though John does it, he's still a nice guy. Also, to me, the first one is more
judgemental towards John than the second.

~~~
samatman
This is even summed up in a bit of wisdom: in a sentence containing the word
"but", you may safely ignore everything which comes before that word.

------
dreen
Heres a great list from GOV.UK of the kind of words to avoid when using Plain
English:

[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-
sty...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style#words-
to-avoid)

~~~
strogonoff
Love it. Check out “Writing for GOV.UK”[0] for more guidance.

Among interesting things to note that they strongly discourage FAQs (“if you
write content by starting with user needs, you will not need to use FAQs …
they are usually not frequently asked questions by the public, but important
information dumped by the content editor”). The concept of FAQ has long been a
pet peeve of mine, although I do believe the “question and answer” format has
some merit.

[0] [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-
gov-u...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk)

~~~
BurningFrog
A useful FAQ list _must_ consist of questions that are actually often asked.

They represent discovered problems in the text the author didn't foresee.

~~~
strogonoff
> They represent discovered problems in the text the author didn't foresee.

Indeed. If certain questions are asked frequently, likely the information is
not presented with audience’s actual needs in mind. Content should be updated,
possibly rewritten. Putting up a FAQ shows content editor washing their hands
of that responsibility.

I also find it a little rude, like “Welcome to the group of people who,
despite our best efforts, didn’t manage to understand what we wrote! Here are
some questions you lot keep asking…” (Of course, usually it’s not that, but
rather a half-hearted attempt to be helpful and/or reduce the amount of people
getting in touch with questions.)

~~~
radiowave
Of course, FAQs originated in places like mailing lists and usenet groups,
where it's arguably a good fit, precisely because there _is_ no real standing
body of text. The trouble is that it then got shoe-horned into being used on
websites.

------
aclimatt
I'd guess (almost) everyone wishes everyone else wrote in plain language. But
there's potentially a more fundamental reason people don't. bambax in another
comment pointed out the power of ambiguity, and that's one of the reasons
especially in legal / government, but there's another.

Language, specifically jargon, is an expression of culture. It's an expression
of power, education, experience, or lack thereof. It's a quick way to gauge if
someone is "like you" or not. If they have the same experience, and especially
in professional settings, a quick (yet often incorrect) measure of competence.

Take everyone's favorite, "Business English":

You don't try again, you _iterate_. You don't take another call, you _jump_ or
_hop_ to another call. You _sync_ , and you _align_. Against the article's
recommendation, you nominalize all day, by "bringing projects to completion"
and "moving forward with the engagement".

Jargon and style, while often utter bullshit, is a way of measuring people
quickly. I once had someone ask me, "would you say you practice disruptive
innovation methodology?" My answer to that question was a quick way to learn
that unlike them, I did not have an MBA. Complexity is often synonymous with
education.

> Jargon is a type of language that is only understood by a particular group
> of people. You can use jargon when writing to people who will understand the
> terms and phrases. It can be a useful form of shorthand. But try to avoid
> using specialist jargon on the general public.

Unless your goal is to identify if someone is part of said particular group.
And therefore in the vast majority of business and technical cases, Plain
English -- at least jargon and nominalization -- unfortunately may close more
doors than it opens.

~~~
nicbou
There is a place and a time for culture. Your electric bill is not one of
them.

I disagree with your last paragraph. Speaking clearly and decisively is a good
thing, and people will usually appreciate it. People become famous for
speaking clearly. I remember some general made the rounds for his plain, no-
nonsense COVID-19 address. I wish I could find it again.

I can only think of this scene right now.

[https://youtu.be/Hhy7JUinlu0](https://youtu.be/Hhy7JUinlu0)

~~~
aclimatt
I'd say that actually is my point though. If you're a high-ranking official
giving a speech, speaking the same language as the general population will
make you well-received and well-understood by using the language of your
constituents.

Speaking a language people _understand_ is decisively a good thing, and what
people understand varies dramatically by situation. "Plain English" isn't
always the answer. (Also hierarchy -- when you're on top, you get to set the
tone.)

If you want to be part of a club, you need to sound like a member. Unless you
own the club.

~~~
nicbou
In the end, you have to adapt your speech to your audience. If you address the
members of a club, you can speak their language. When the club is 300+ million
strong, you might have to pick a broader tone.

------
ajarmst
This is good advice, but we should be wary of assuming that writing well is
easy or a matter of following rules. Like most things worth doing, good
writing requires that we practice it regularly and over a period of years,
that we are exposed to good writing, and that we have access to competent
feedback on our own writing.

Every decent writer I know has worked diligently at practice, usually for
years. They're also omnivorous readers of good long-form writing. Finally,
they seek and are grateful for the advice of a good editor.

Talent can help you advance in skill more quickly and perhaps reach a higher
ultimate plateau, but it does little to replace the requirement for
observation, practice and review. I've often thought that talent is
indistinguishable from interest and passion---it's what gets you to do the
work, not a replacement for it.

Some minor comments: "utilize" should be on the list of words to avoid. I have
yet to encounter a use of that word that wouldn't be improved by replacing it
with "use". In technical and scientific writing, passive voice can be valuable
when the salient concern is not the actor, but the act and its consequences.
"The sheep were administered methamphetamine one hour before being tased"
focuses on the study, while "we gave the sheep meth and then we tased them"
focusses on the scientists. The former is often better for this type of
writing.

Note: the example is from one of my favourite studies. I wish I had heard
about before I chose my thesis topic:
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1553-2712...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00708.x)

------
icu
Plain English has been a 'super power' for my report writing ever since it was
drummed into me by a former CEO and MD at a finance and economic consultancy I
worked at after University.

"Style toward Clarity and Grace" by Joseph M. Williams is, imho, the most
thorough, yet comprehensible, guide to how to write in Plain English. It goes
beyond short 'do this, don't do that' guides by explaining why, and how,
English can be unclear with exercises to help transform your writing.

I can't stress enough that the ability to take both simple ideas, and complex
ideas, and write both in a clear and compelling way that inspires action, will
pay dividends over any career.

~~~
pinky07
I wrote a memento / summary of the book, for anyone interested to discover it
at a glance:
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F8_p3bkzugTvkBd1Ja6bHLR2...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F8_p3bkzugTvkBd1Ja6bHLR2v_XXRWqtcq7jF2gu0EM/edit?usp=sharing)

~~~
icu
Thank you for the link, this is a great resource you've put together! I'll be
sure to share with some of my colleagues.

------
srg0
How to write rich text English:

1) The writer should make a conscious effort to keep his or her sentences as
long as possible; just one word: the flow; some shorter sentences can be
juxtaposed, periods replaced with comas or semicolons; the abundance of
adjectives and adjective phrases never hurt --

2) The passive voice has to be chosen whenever possible; safer, less
offensive, less responsible language is the enabler

3) Possessive determiners are to be preferred over personal pronouns, the
passive voice is based on their liberal use

4) Thesaurus is considered by some to be essential for richer and more subtle
communication, word substitutions refine the ideas being conveyed to the
reader --

\-- the reader should be never explicitly solicited to do anything -- he or
she should be free-willed into doing

6) Consideration of these dos and donts will likely unleash also the power of
nominalization; nominalized verbs put action first

*) Bullet lists are the standard punctuation;

/s

------
bertman
The campaign founder's biography[1] sounds interesting:

    
    
      Born in 1938, Chrissie largely missed out on formal education 
      and could not read until she was in her mid‑teens.
    

And later:

    
    
      In 1994 Chrissie received an OBE and in 1995 she was awarded an 
      honorary MA by Manchester University. Two years later, she received 
      an honorary doctorate from the Open University. And in 1999 she 
      officially joined the 'establishment' when she was listed in Who's Who.
    

[1] [http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/about-us/history/chrissie-
mahe...](http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/about-us/history/chrissie-maher-
obe.html)

------
Brajeshwar
Personally, I'm happy with few tools that helps me write simpler (and
hopefully better) English in my everyday usage.

## Long-Form

When I'm writing a long-form prose/essay, I start writing in Hemingway[1].
Edits and changes are done there to cater to my target audience. I'd then pick
up the draft from there and go through Grammarly[2] as the final passage.

## Quick, Short Writings

For everyday use, I use iA / Writer[3]. I turn on all the Style Check filters
to spot superfluous adjectives, weak verbs, and unwanted repetitions. I then,
let it go through Grammarly (either with the App, or via browser Input
fields).

This has helped me a lot. Growing up in a region with too many dialects per
area, we used English as the one medium to communicate and educate, so I have
the affinity to write more phrase-y, English-y. For quite a while, I have
wanted to simply and write more clearer, simpler, and effective. These three
tools have helped me a lot.

I have used Grammarly for almost a year, it says my vocabulary uses more
unique words than 94% of Grammarly users. I'm not particularly proud of that.
I want to simplify.

1\. [http://www.hemingwayapp.com](http://www.hemingwayapp.com)

2\. [https://grammarly.com](https://grammarly.com)

3\. [https://ia.net/writer](https://ia.net/writer)

------
DrBazza
English vs. business English.

Pre-boarding is just boarding. Pre-booking is just booking.

Pre-prefixing everything. Sigh.

"Please revert" \- you mean 'reply', not 'return to a former state'.

"Ping me" \- ugh.

And my favourite.... "Learnings" \- you mean lessons. "What drivings have you
been on?" ... "What journeys have you been on?"

~~~
dijit
“Ping me” really threw me for a loop the first time I heard a non-tech say it
in an obvious non-tech way.

It literally has no other meaning outside of the ICMP echo utility; and the
onomatopoeia of hitting glass.

How did it enter the Business world?

~~~
jariel
_Ping_ comes from _submarine sonar_ \- not the networking world.

Everyone of a certain age will have seen a half dozen submarine WW2 or Cold
War films so regular people do have context.

And there's nothing wrong with it.

'Learnings' is an odd word but it actually makes sense because there are no
perfect substitutes. 'Insights' isn't quite it.

~~~
quietbritishjim
A possible alternative to "learning" is "lesson". The problem with "lesson" is
that it can have two meanings:

(a) a formal lecture given by a qualified person to a class;

(b) a fact that you learned from any person or even just a situation you were
in.

"Lesson" in the sense (b) is a direct substitute for "a learning", but I have
to admit a few people might sometimes interpret it as (a) and be confused. But
it depends on the context - if a project report has a "lessons learnt" heading
I don't think any reader is going to expect that means meaning (a).

~~~
jariel
Yeah - 'lessons learned' is idiomatically more tantamount to something
'learned after having made an error'.

I'll bet there are words in other languages that more perfectly capture the
meaning of 'learnings' \- and admittedly it's a really ugly colloquialism ...
but I would accept it out of a resigned pragmatism.

------
bambax
I frequently receive letters from various European administrations, France,
Germany, Poland, the UK.

Letters from HMRC are amazing. The first time it is really shocking, but after
a while it's almost a pleasure to be asked to send money to the Queen!

But I think one of the reason bureaucracies prefer writing jargon and long
winded sentences is to protect their influence and necessity. If you write in
plain English (or French), then there's little room for interpretation. Good
for the reader, but not for the sender. Ambiguity is power.

~~~
nicbou
The ones from German bureaucrats are simply horrible.

------
williamsmj
The Plain English Campaign is not a useful authority on English usage. They
are a group of prigs and pedants who issue press releases about alleged errors
by famous people in the hope they will receive coverage in the British press
and bring in work for their consulting business.

I'm distressed to learn they now expound at book length and I'm surprised to
see this garbage taken seriously by HN.

See, e.g.
[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002229.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002229.html),
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110510090548/http://oliverkamm...](https://web.archive.org/web/20110510090548/http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/03/plain_english_b.html).

~~~
ajarmst
One problem with plain writing using simple sentence structure, common words
and conversational grammar is that it's _boring_. It has its place: technical
writing where facts need to be presented completely and unambiguously as well
as writing for non-native speakers are two examples. However, if your goal is
to educate, entertain, convince, communicate with passion, or simply express
yourself in a way that permits subtlety or complexity, then it's tremendously
constraining---and even more boring to write than it is to read.

------
robin_reala
This article explains how, but it doesn’t explain why: you should do this
because it’s an accessibility issue. NHS Digital came up with a good example
of this problem: [https://digital.nhs.uk/blog/transformation-blog/2019/pee-
and...](https://digital.nhs.uk/blog/transformation-blog/2019/pee-and-poo-and-
the-language-of-health)

~~~
dan-robertson
Saying the reason is “accessibility” suggests that it only helps people with
poor literacy. There are two things to note:

1\. Most people writing content will assume that their readers are like
themselves or their social circle and will therefore have good literacy
skills. However the actual proportion of people with poor (or even just not
high) literacy skills is much higher than you might estimate from your social
circle.

2\. Improving clarity for people with poor literacy will also improve
readability for people with good literacy.

~~~
searchableguy
> Government experts often say that because they’re writing technical or
> complex content for a specialist audience, they do not need to use plain
> English. This is wrong.

> Research shows that higher literacy people prefer plain English because it
> allows them to understand the information as quickly as possible.

> For example, research into use of specialist legal language in legal
> documents found:

> 80% of people preferred sentences written in clear English - and the more
> complex the issue, the greater that preference (for example, 97% preferred
> ‘among other things’ over the Latin ‘inter alia’)

> the more educated the person and the more specialist their knowledge, the
> greater their preference for plain English

> People understand complex specialist language, but do not want to read it if
> there’s an alternative. This is because people with the highest literacy
> levels and the greatest expertise tend to have the most to read. They do not
> have time to pore through reams of dry, complicated prose.

someone linked this above: [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-
design/writing-for-gov-u...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-
design/writing-for-gov-uk)

~~~
pbronez
This makes total sense to me. Simple language makes room for complex ideas.

~~~
sah2ed
> _This makes total sense to me. Simple language makes room for complex
> ideas._

My takeaway is slightly different: simple words (familiar) are easier to
digest than big words (unfamiliar) because familiar words will be parsed very
quickly for most people than unfamiliar words.

I prefer to use the categorization of “familiar” vs “unfamiliar” because the
categorization of a word as “big” or “simple” depends largely on the reading
ability of the person making the assessment.

------
lxe
Don't follow the 'active verbs' rule too much. There's a limit to it,
especially when writing technical documents. If it sounds unnatural, or when
you have an implied subject that's an important part of the thing you're
trying to convey, just use passive voice.

~~~
compressedgas
Also Fear and Loathing of the English Passive
[http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf](http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf)

------
jhpriestley
It is not only the sheer pleasure of reading language used to its utmost, an
indulgence found in the enduring literary accomplishments of Shakespeare or
Dickens but somewhat lacking in the trendier, reportorial style of a Hemingway
(who, after a hundred years, it seems safe to say has not reached the same
level of immortal acclaim), but also if I may venture, a particular
suitability to the kind of digressive, meandering, rich and nuanced thought, a
precious and valuable part of human intellect, a rich roast which loses much
of its savor when cut into bite-sized chunks, which recommends, contra all the
style advice of today's factory-line English departments, an appreciation and
a space for the continuation of the English of Milton and Gibbons and Melville
as against the simplified, utilitarian style recommended in the fine article.

~~~
bonoboTP
That style has its uses for sure. For example if you want to impress people or
signal belonging to certain groups. It's also risky to state something in a
crystal clear way, because you can be disproved and your status is diminished.
As long as you write in long sentences and a confusing academic style, you can
feel safe in your lukewarm puddle and enjoy your high status and sneer at the
plebs. It's a sign of insecurity and inferiority complex.

If you actually have substance to say and feel confident about it, then chunk
it up. Clear writing needs courage and is a weapon in itself against the
entrenched lazy elites. A slingshot of David against Goliath. While unclear
writing is a middle finger towards the public.

Also, I disagree that Shakespeare is as obscure and hard to read as your
comment would suggest. He is just from a different era but was quite a down-
to-earth fellow, not some stuck-up obscurantist.

------
fooblat
This is especially important when working at an international company with
many non-native English speakers.

One of the software engineers (an English major) I worked with at a previous
gig could not get his head around the idea of writing in plan English.

He would write English at such an elaborate level that when he announced his
resignation to the company via email, most people did not understand from that
email that he was resigning!

------
macando
From Stephen King's _On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft_ :

"If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a
lot and write a lot. There’s no way around these two things that I’m aware of,
no shortcut.

I’m a slow reader, but I usually get through seventy or eighty books a year,
mostly fiction. I don’t read in order to study the craft; I read because I
like to read. It’s what I do at night, kicked back in my blue chair.
Similarly, I don’t read fiction to study the art of fiction, but simply
because I like stories. Yet there is a learning process going on. Every book
you pick up has its own lesson or lessons, _and quite often the bad books have
more to teach than the good ones_ "

Can't recommend enough this book. Peek inside the mind of the master of
writing in Plain English and one of the greatest modern storytellers. For me
one of the best non-fiction books out there. Wish more artists produced
something like this.

------
ralphstodomingo
I'm curious. Is there a specific reason why the trend for our use of the
English language went towards this direction, when in the past, a lot of the
historical material I read seemed intentionally verbose?

Sure, it's all for ensuring we are understood better among ourselves, but I
wonder if writing this way makes us cognitively simpler.

~~~
nabla9
Plain English should not be confused with low literacy level. Plain English is
a style that is hard to master. Only 12% of U.S. adults reach the highest
PIAAC literacy proficiency levels.

"unnecessary verbosity" is just one way to express your position in the
society. Wearing impractical clothes, complex etiquette, having pale skin and
speaking in certain manner was something that requires either wealth or
practise.

Today business jargon combined with clothes and behaviour still work today as
signalling your identity. So is wearing hoodie and saying "bro" constantly.
People learn to feel comfortable in the uniform and in the language they
identify with.

~~~
daffy
It is also possible that certain styles of writing and clothing are felt by
some to be more beautiful. It is not necessary to reduce every stylistic
predilection to status or identity signalling.

------
SagelyGuru
Am I the only one who finds The List of Words to Avoid rather depressing? I
mean I get what they are trying to do: minimise the number of letters. Yet,
language is also about variety and not being really, really dull. Perhaps also
about not treating your readers like idiots? Most of those slightly longer
words look like perfectly legitimate alternatives in that regard.

~~~
quietbritishjim
It would be depressing if they were suggesting this style of language for
literature, but they are absolutely not suggesting that. They are suggesting
it for bureaucratic situations, like a utility company sending a bill or a
goverrment body issuing notes about how to fill in a driving licence
application form. A utility bill is never going to be a thrill to read, so if
using simpler language means that some recipients understand they're exempt
from a charge when they wouldn't have realised otherwise, or are simply able
to read it a bit faster, then that's a clear win.

Frankly, it's more important to maximise the number of people that understand
government advice than it is to maximise your enjoyment of application forms.

The advice is not even necessarily for situations that are partway between
factual and pleasure, like a blog post or your example of a news article (or a
HN comment!). In those cases it could still be helpful to bear the advice in
mind, but without taking it too seriously.

------
GuB-42
Something not written there: don't use acronyms

Acronyms are a plague, especially in technical documents. These documents may
include a glossary, which it better than nothing, but if an acronym is only
used once or twice in a document, why not use the full name instead?

Here is a couple of anecdotes:

\- I once overheard a heated argument between a project manager and some over
guy who criticized his work. Turned out, they weren't talking about the same
project at all, only their acronyms where the same.

\- In a report that explained why a particular proposal was selected over its
competitors, one of the positive points was that their proposal was clearly
written, understandable, and didn't contain any acronym.

~~~
pilsetnieks
It does say to "Use everyday English whenever possible. Avoid jargon and
legalistic words, and always explain any technical terms you have to use."

------
docent8
This guide makes excellent points. I also recommend this book:

[https://www.amazon.com/Style-Clarity-Chicago-Writing-
Publish...](https://www.amazon.com/Style-Clarity-Chicago-Writing-
Publishing/dp/0226899152)

He says that to achieve clarity, imagine the subject of each sentence as the
character of a scene, and the verb as its action. Make sure you hit both
character and action within the first 6-10 words of your sentence.

Begin each sentence with information that the reader is familiar with, and end
it with the new information you want to introduce.

That will get you a long way toward creating understanding (and feeling) in
the reader.

------
tjpnz
As someone working with software engineers for which English is not a first
language I cannot emphasise the importance of this enough. I've spent the last
year or so consciously working on my writing and it's really paid off -
especially given the current situation.

Never assume anything about your audience's understanding. Break everything
down into short, concise sentences. If you're attempting to get across a non-
trivial concept avoid the temptation to use big words - even if you end up
having to write more. When you're done take another pass and see if you can
simplify things further.

------
karaterobot
I don't write in E-Prime, but I think it raises a valid point: you can often
clarify and strengthen your English sentences by avoiding the verb "to be".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime)

~~~
pidg
Given someone called John who is a racist, can you find a way to say "John is
a racist" in E-Prime without making John seem less racist?

~~~
karaterobot
I think the point is that you describe what John does, or how people think of
John, rather than what John "is". The Wikipedia article (which constitutes all
I know about E-Prime) says:

> [The authors of E-Prime] describe misuse of the verb _to be_ as creating a
> "deity mode of speech", allowing "even the most ignorant to transform their
> opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things".

And I think that's appropriate here.

------
powersnail
Structure is the biggest factor of readability. We’ve seen many English style
guides, but they are mostly on a sentence and vocabulary level.

A run-on sentence can still be read, just more slowly. An unfamiliar word can
be tackled with a dictionary.

But if the text isn’t well-organized on the larger scale, there is no hope.

------
divbzero
_The Elements of Style_ by Strunk & White offers similar advice: “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.”

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style)

~~~
kashyapc
Although it is a marvelous little book, _' The Elements of Style'_ is quite
lacking. Instead, I'd strongly echo the suggestion of the user 'icu' in this
thread[1], where they mention _' Style: Towards Clarity and Grace'_ by Joseph
Williams and Gregory Colomb (there are several editions of this; but any
earlier edition would do).

To quote from _' Towards Clarity and Grace'_ (it is alluding to what's lacking
in _' The Elements'_):

[quote]

 _This is a book about writing clearly. I wish it could be short and simple
like some others more widely known, but I want to do more than just urge
writers to "Omit Needless Words" or "Be clear." Telling me to "Be clear" is
like telling me to "Hit the ball squarely." I know that. What I don't know is
how to do it. To explain how to write clearly, I have to go beyond
platitudes._

 _But I want to do more than just help you write clearly. I also want you to
understand this matter to understand why some prose seems clear, other prose
not, and why two readers might disagree about it; why a passive verb can be a
better choice than an active verb; why so many truisms about style are either
incomplete or wrong. More important, I want that understanding to consist not
of anecdotal bits and pieces, but of a coherent system of principles more
useful than "Write short sentences."_

[/quote]

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268952](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268952)

------
secondcoming
The EU has ended up inventing its own form of English [0]

"Over the years, the European institutions have developed a vocabulary that
differs from that of any recognised form of English. It includes words that do
not exist or are relatively unknown to native English speakers outside the EU
institutions and often even to standard spellcheckers/grammar checkers
(‘planification’, ‘to precise’ or ‘telematics’ for example) and words that are
used with a meaning, often derived from other languages, that is not usually
found in English dictionaries (‘coherent’ being a case in point). Some words
are used with more or less the correct meaning, but in contexts where they
would not be used by native speakers (‘homogenise’, for example)."

[0]
[https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOG...](https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION.pdf)

------
dragonwriter
> * A list that is a continuous sentence with several listed points picked out
> at the beginning, middle or end.

> * A list of separate points with an introductory statement (like this list).

> In the list above, each point is a complete sentence

Er, no, each of those is a (quite long, given the target sentence size the
piece argues for) freestanding noun phrase, not a complete sentence.

------
polimind
"It's faster to write."

Totally disagree with this point. Orwell explains how the exact opposite is
true in his "Politics and the English Language." Vague writing requires only
vague thought. Clear writing requires clear thought (as well as editing), and
clear thought takes effort. As a writer, you might have to spend more time
actually typing unclear and convoluted garbage, but you can basically turn off
your brain and just start vomiting words onto the page. To do that asks much
less of you than writing clearly does. (Classic example is the Pascal quote:
"I apologize for the length of my letter. I didn't have time to write a
shorter one.")

------
paulnechifor
> whilst (while)

I'm not a native English speaker, but I find it funny how Americans often
consider English spellings wrong.

I wonder if American Hispanics do the same for Spaniards:

> Ahem, it's pronounced "ustedes", not "vosotros". That's not a word.

~~~
cprecioso
Spanish spellings are quite standardized around the world, the “language
academies” of each country collaborate together. Moreover Spanish writing is
phonetic so there’s only really one way to pronounce a written word.

On the other hand, in Spain we’re famous for “cecear”, that is to pronounce
“c” as the z in zombie; while in the rest of Latin America the pronounce it
more like an s.

~~~
kwhitefoot
> Spanish writing is phonetic so there’s only really one way to pronounce a
> written word.

So there are no accents or dialects in Spain?

~~~
cprecioso
Of course there are. What I mean is that each letter is only pronounced one
way.

For example, in English the "o" in "woman" and "women" sounds different, with
exactly the same syllabic structure. However in Spanish, every time you write
the "o" it is pronounced the same as every other "o". In some accents/dialects
some letters will have slightly different pronunciations or intonations (e.g.
c turns into s, or s at the end of a word will turn silent), but within that
accent, most sounds will remain stably linked to a letter.

EDIT: Of course, I am not a linguist and I'm sure every word of my example can
be debunked a million ways; but this is the experience of the language for a
native Spain Spanish speaker.

------
greentimer
"Most experts would agree that clear writing should have an average sentence
length of 15 to 20 words."

This quote is so preposterous it almost made me want to stop reading the
article. Different types of writing should have different sentence lengths.
I'm quite sure the sentence length for a math textbook and a Clorox ad should
be different. There's a reason it's not common practice to measure one's
average sentence lengths.

Like most material written on language, this article says almost nothing and
is basically filler. "Don't be afraid to give instructions". "Use lists where
appropriate". Well of course we know we can give instructions! I recently read
a famous book called "How to Read a Book" that in a similar vein struggled to
find anything non-obvious to say about language. It just comes so naturally to
people that it's difficult to comment on. This article is coming from an
organization called the Plain English Campaign that's been around since 1979.
I wonder what they can have claimed to have accomplished since then.

This article reminded me of arguments I always read in philosophy about tough
subjects like radical skepticism where the authors fail to make any points
beyond the obvious. Sure, certain knowledge is impossible for humans to
attain, but can you say anything else!?

~~~
C4stor
As a non-native english writer, I found the article quite good.

It reminds good practices for clear communication, which I wish everyone
applied in my org.

Notably around me, people excessively use passive forms.

So, you weren't interested, but it doesn't mean it interests noone.

~~~
crpatino
In order to communicate effectively you need a mental model of your audience.
The same sentence can be cumbersome to some readers, just right for others,
and even condescendingly simplistic for a small minority.

The fact that you found the article to be useful simply means that you are
part of their target audience, which is great. Just keep in mind that the same
advice will not work as well when you communicate with a different audience

~~~
C4stor
I'll keep it in mind :-)

My context with using english in general (like here on HN) is communicating as
a non-native with both native speakers and non-native speakers. For some of
those, just reading english is a challenge.

Since I also know I can easily write nonsensical sentences, I thought this
article was a good reminder on how to safely stay in the "I make sense" area
in this context, and as so disagreed with person I replied to ^^

I would definitely have higher ambitions regarding "tone" in my mother tongue
though, but for english writing, I'll be happy if I can be clear !

------
rjmunro
I've heard complaints that while it calls itself "campaign", implying it's a
not-for-profit grass roots movement, it is actually a private for-profit
company selling publications along with commercial editing and training
services.

[https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02564513](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02564513)

------
ucarion
As others here have mentioned, the British government maintains similar
guidance:

[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-
gov-u...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk)

As does the US federal government:

[https://plainlanguage.gov/](https://plainlanguage.gov/)

------
jetrink
At the start of my career, I had some bad tendencies in both writing and
programming. I delighted in being clever. I was eager to demonstrate my
knowledge and ability. I was more concerned with having fun while writing than
serving the reader. It has been educational to be forced to become a reader of
my own work, though I read much more of my old code than my old writing.

------
vonwoodson
The US government actually put this idea into law 10 years ago:
[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ274](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ274)

More interesting link here:
[https://plainlanguage.gov](https://plainlanguage.gov)

------
oliver101
> Most of the UK's biggest insurance companies produce policies that explain
> everything fully in plain English.

Is this an argument in favour of plain English? Insurance policy documents are
incredibly hard to understand and full of bloat. They are a near-perfect
example of how not to write an accessible, informative, and useful document
for the intended audience.

~~~
JDEW
Two paragraphs down:

> Sadly, thanks to the bureaucrats of public service industries, local
> councils, banks, building societies, _insurance companies_ and government
> departments, we have learnt to accept an official style of writing that is
> inefficient and often unfriendly.

> But in the last few years, many of these offenders have started to put
> things right, either rewriting their documents clearly or training their
> staff in the art of plain English, or both.

So, it’s a work in progress. I agree that the order is confusing though.

~~~
oliver101
I saw that but couldn't square it with the earlier sentence.

In my previous role we interviewed tens of small business owners and nobody
knew what was in their docs. I hope insurance companies will be as bold to go
beyond simplifying language but also simplifying terms (e.g. Lemonade's
[https://www.lemonade.com/policy-two](https://www.lemonade.com/policy-two))

------
kwhitefoot
> You may not photocopy any guide or pass on electronic copies without our
> permission.

Why do people bother making unenforceable restrictions?

~~~
russfink
Bump. Yes, why the ominous copyright? It's plain silly.

~~~
NKosmatos
I think the best (worst?) copyright notice is the following from Ken
Rockwell[0]: "As this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is
unlawful to make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use.
If you wish to make a printout for personal use, you are granted one-time
permission only if you PayPal me $5.00 per printout or part thereof. Thank
you!"

[0]
[https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm](https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm)

------
brianmcc
This Orwell essay stuck with me many years ago, well worth a read:
[https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...](https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit)

~~~
uniqueid
It's only the best English essay of its kind — or maybe of _any_ kind!

~~~
brianmcc
It could well be!

Reading it properly again for the first time in literally around 30 years I'm
astonished at how much I've taken its messages to heart in my 20+ year career.

To this day I have a downright visceral reaction against "pretentious
diction", and as a fairly confident written communicator I find overly
"clever" writing is to be mistrusted, not praised. There's a real Emperor's
New Clothes thing going on with a lot of business writing.

------
samthecoy
If anyone is interested, there is an excellent "plain style" guide which is
recommend for much of the British Civil Service. It's called "Plain Words",
and is by Sir Ernest Gowers. It's received an updated version in recent years.

------
paulpauper
Longer sentences are better and more efficient for conveying content when used
appropriately. Short sentences mean you have to use too many conjunctions and
other filler. Use whatever style you think will be the most effective for
readers.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I think there are two kinds of long sentences.

One just keeps adding detail. It's essentially a list. Breaking it up into
multiple sentences would require a lot of unnecessary conjunctions as you say.

The other kind of long sentence forces you to keep a lot in your head until
the meaning is finally resolved at the very end. That's the kind of sentence
that should be broken up because it creates unnecessary mental burden.

~~~
rimliu
It may also create necessary mental burden. I think too much has been
considered "unnecessary mental burden" recently, including education.

------
ericsoderstrom
Was the "avoid nominalization" section intended to be tongue-in-cheek?
"Nominalization" is itself a nominalization. If the section followed its own
advice it would read "don't nominalize [verbs]"

------
mcguire
" _Apologising: If you are replying to a tricky letter or a complaint, or are
dealing with a difficult problem, put yourself in the reader 's shoes. Be
professional, not emotional. You may have to give a firm, unwelcome answer,
but be as helpful and polite as possible. If you are going to apologise, do so
early. If the problem is your fault, say so. Apologise completely and
concisely, sympathetically and sincerely. And whether it is your fault or not,
try to emphasise what you can do for the other person._"

Wow. Worth the price of entry right there.

------
amadeuspagel
> Use lists where appropriate

This is so important. How many essays are basically a list of unrelated
arguments, but not presented as a list?

Things lists make easier:

\- Refer to specific points.

\- Skip a point you already understand.

Even as I write this, I had to remind myself to express it as a list, rather
then a long-winded sentence, which I probably wouldn't have if I weren't
writing specifically to advocate lists. It's so deeply ingrained by years of
english classes to hide the structure of the text with clauses such as
"furthermore". I even remember being supposed to learn a list of such clauses.

------
azangru
> Sadly, thanks to the bureaucrats of public service industries, local
> councils, banks, building societies, insurance companies and government
> departments, we have learnt to accept an official style of writing that is
> inefficient and often unfriendly.

Interesting. I thought the use of "thanks to" as a preposition indicating a
causal relationship with negative consequences was generally discouraged,
because, by its very nature, it's a metaphor. But I can't find any style guide
that would support this.

------
jackschultz
One thing not mentioned that I'd like to add is avoid using pronouns when you
can. Like he, she, it, them, this, that. As soon as you have multiple nouns in
when explaining something, you can get screwed. I find myself typing pronouns
a lot and when I read back what I wrote, I can see how people get confused.
Clarity is so important, and pronouns hurt that.

------
ximm
This might be a good spot to point out that there is actually a BCP 47
language tag for this: en-simple. I would love to see more adoption.

More info: [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-
languages/yVTGZS-...](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-
languages/yVTGZS-6IfBnnk8hmz1n36jVpgM)

------
wombatmobile
When the purpose of written communication is to direct, instruct or inform,
Plain English works wonders.

Other times, like when people write to demonstrate nuanced expertise, or to
connect with a specific audience, or to place themselves apart from a specific
audience, or to entertain, delight, uplift, transcend, prod, annoy, or
console, Plain English can be too plain.

------
3minus1
Reminds me of this clip of David Foster Wallace where he discusses puffy words
like "prior to" and "utilize" that people use for some reason when a much
simpler word works:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_sQrxAorDo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_sQrxAorDo)

------
maps7
I see no proof that 'active' is better than 'passive'. Does anyone have any
more information on this?

~~~
rimliu
What would be considere a proof in linquistics?

~~~
maps7
A study on the impact of both methods? I don't understand how it can be
claimed 'active' is better than 'passive'?

------
iou
This looks to be a bit of a distillation of "revising prose" book
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1552699.Revising_Prose](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1552699.Revising_Prose)

------
greenie_beans
it's very hard to write well.

one of the best pieces of writing advice i ever heard:

your sentences should make sense enough to be taken out of a paragraph and put
on a new line for each sentence.

if your sentences make sense on a line-by-line basis, then your writing is
more understandable.

------
antipaul
How in the world am I to do this, when no manager nor leader in my org leads
by example?

~~~
garethrowlands
Do this in the areas you control. If that's just your own output, that's OK.
Maybe later you can expand it.

~~~
antipaul
Indeed, good suggestion.

The tension is with standing out, culturally and otherwise. If what you do is
outside the norm, you are “different” and “difficult to work with”.

But yea, doing the right thing is more important!

------
pbronez
Another good resource is
[https://plainlanguage.gov/](https://plainlanguage.gov/)

I frequently refer writers to specific sections of this site when I edit their
technical and marketing documents.

------
rendall
I love that they destroy those myths, which have become a pox on beautiful,
expressive writing. The "no split infinitive" nonsense-rule has a
spectacularly shameful history.

------
k__
Reminds me of Wikipedia's "simple English" approach.

I think the difference is, that simple or basic English only uses the 1000
most common words.

~~~
throwanem
You might not know it, but "thousand" is not one of the ten hundred most usual
English words! [https://github.com/aaron-em/ten-hundred-
mode.el](https://github.com/aaron-em/ten-hundred-mode.el)

~~~
rimliu
I think this is English specific and could do more harm than good for someone
with a different background. E.g. in my language counting anything > 1000 in
hundreds would sound very weird.

~~~
throwanem
"Ten hundred", "twenty hundred", etc. sound very weird in English, too,
despite "eleven hundred", "twelve hundred", etc. being commonplace in at least
the American dialect.

That said, "ten hundred" is hardly the weirdest thing about English prose
written in ten-hundred-mode...

------
SkyMarshal
Oblig Scott Adams reference, for anyone who hasn’t seen it yet:

[https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/06/the...](https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/06/the_day_you_bec.html)

------
jwilk
"a mistake was made" as a good use of passive? Is that a joke?

~~~
8K832d7tNmiQ
As a way to blurring whom to blame, yes it works fine.

------
levosmetalo
Would like to see a similar suggestion for writing in plain German.

------
matthewfelgate
That's actually really useful.

------
motohagiography
As someone who finds passive language patronizing and insulting, this is a
relief to read.

~~~
zeckalpha
“this is a relief to read” -> “reading this relieved me”

Perhaps passive voice isn’t as annoying to you as you claim. There is a
difference between writing passively and using passive voice.

~~~
motohagiography
Hah, indeed. I'd say the passive voice is a common a tool for patronizing
people, and too much tolerance for it is bad for an organization.

~~~
ativzzz
> and too much tolerance for it is bad for an organization

Passive again! "An organization tolerating it too much is bad" is active :)

~~~
motohagiography
The intended more-active would be "A leader who tolerates too much of it harms
their organization," so it doesn't always transpose.

------
nicbou
I write technical guides for people who are not native speakers. Using simple
vocabulary is easy, but using simple grammar is not.

Here's a recent article I wrote. It should give you an idea of what I mean:
[https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/car-insurance-
germany](https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/car-insurance-germany)

There are a few things I would add to this:

\---

▶ Your readers are here for information, not entertainment. Get to the point.

▶ If a paragraph answers a question, the first sentence should be the tl;dr.
Highlight it if necessary. [1]

▶ Use formatting to make skimming easier. Users don't read documents from
start to finish. They are looking for specific answers. [2] I spent a lot of
time tweaking my website to be more readable.

▶ Use can (optional), should (recommended) and must (mandatory) consistently.
"It's ill-advised to do this, because ..." >>> "You should not do this,
because ...".

▶ Avoid run-on sentences. Generally, that means maximum one comma per
sentence.

▶ Start with the "if" part of the sentence: "If you are over 60, you are not
eligible". It lets people skip sentences that don't concern them.

▶ Avoid expressions and idioms as much as possible. "If you're feeling under
the weather, stay home" >>> "If you don't feel well, stay home".

▶ Avoid ambiguity between sentences: "The cat sits in the house. It is old."
>>> "The old cat sits in the house".

▶ Use commas generously. It makes sentences easier to digest. I'm a big fan of
the Oxford comma.

▶ Use Hemingway [3] to catch some of those mistakes

\---

In other words, DON'T BE CLEVER. It feels a lot like writing software that
will be maintained by novice programmers.

Simple language is really important, especially if you deal with the general
population. Some people don't read well. Some people don't speak English well.
Some topics are confusing enough on their own.

[1] [https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/anmeldung-in-english-
berli...](https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/anmeldung-in-english-berlin#can-i-
do-my-anmeldung-at-a-hotel-or-airBnB)

[2] [https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/how-to-get-a-german-
freela...](https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/how-to-get-a-german-freelance-
visa)

[3] [http://www.hemingwayapp.com/](http://www.hemingwayapp.com/)

------
bonoboTP
Why is bad writing so common, though? I think this needs further exploration.
What are the incentives of the different actors? TL;DR CYA

Clearly, the reader just wants to get the information that is relevant for
them personally, with the least cognitive effort. Then move on with their day
or to the next step in their workflow.

The company/government can have various incentives on various levels of the
hierarchy/bureaucracy.

The boss/owner may want the company to communicate in a snappy, hip, youthful
way, in a friendly and clear tone with no bullshit.

However, the person/department actually writing the text may want to deflect
responsibility, avoid possibilities for blame, keep things vague enough so the
onus is on the customer/citizen to make sure everything will work out. They
don't want to deviate from process. The customers/citizens should be uniform
with no exceptions, because exceptions cause work. If you write too friendly,
people will assume they can get favors, that we can start bargaining because
they are talking to a real person. Text written in a cold, dispassionate,
bureaucratic style will not invite such answers. It signals that things are
set in stone, that there is a process in place and we won't say A or B, they
will have to figure our A vs. B themselves.

For example, I'm a teaching assistant at a university. If I'm buried under too
much work with research and get lots of complicated questions from students, I
give vague answers so I can't get blamed ("But XY said it would work out this
way!"). Also if I use a bunch of official words and formal sentence structure,
the student gets the message that I won't do the work instead of them: there
can be tons of different rules interacting, different study programs have
different rule books etc. In the end it's their responsibility. I cannot give
definitive answers, but experience shows, that writing things plainly often
invites more haggling than writing in an official tone.

The same thing happens when people talk about medical, legal and other
potentially dangerous topics. Even if the actual answer is straightforward and
will apply in 99% of the cases, nobody gets fired for being too cautious. "Nah
don't do that" is the easiest thing to say. Ask your doctor. Ask an attorney.
Check the laws of your region.

To write plain and clear text, you need to leave all these caveats out. But
people will jump at every opportunity to try to shift the blame, and if you
weren't careful, it will accumulate on _your_ desk. To avoid this, orgs and
lawmakers should make sure to reduce the legal responsibility for saying
things.

For example I know a(n underpaid) lawyer working for a governmental
institution in Hungary. They are in the communications department and give
advice on certain legal things to ordinary citizens phoning in or over email.
Fortunately, the laws and rules are set up such that they cannot be blamed for
answering wrong or not hedging enough, they can write as they would to a
family member. It's not "legal advice", because you can't know _all_
circumstances from just an email question. At best, the person or company who
acts on such advice can use the email exchange to demonstrate due diligence.
They at least tried. Still, it's fully their responsibility to check and
interpret the law.

Therefore, unless you shield your writers/departments from blame by similar
explicit rules, they will shield themselves through vaguery and hedging and
complicated writing.

