Return-Path: <root> Received: (from root@localhost) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VBr7r09506 for health-archive@nifl.gov; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200108311153.f7VBr7r09506@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from web12402.mail.yahoo.com (web12402.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.129]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f2JNFAg19733 for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:15:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20010319231506.64379.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [12.40.10.254] by web12402.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:15:06 PST Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:15:06 -0800 (PST) From: Laurie Columbo <mslaurie29@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [NIFL-HEALTH:2928] Re: Easy to read vs. grammatically incorrect To: nifl-health@nifl.gov In-Reply-To: <fc.0024a09a00aade853b9aca00852cac6d.aadeb3@TheHub.capcollege.bc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-From: root@literacy.nifl.gov Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:53:07 -0400 Resent-To: health-archive@nifl.gov Status: O Content-Length: 2573 Lines: 79 > "This medicine is for the child whose name is on the > bottle. Don't give it to any other child." I also like this wording. Also, as a comment to the initial e-mail about grammatical correctness (and maybe someone could clarify this) -- I thought plain language was meant to mimic conversation. We're more familiar with conversational language, so it's easier and quicker for the reader if we write that way. Unfortunately, grammatical correctness is sacrificed, since we don't speak as we write in formal communications, but it seems to me that strict, formal style of writing is changing anyway. It seems that some newspapers (e.g., the NY Times) have slightly changed the writing in some articles, and are taking a larger literary license to have clearer messages, but perhaps less grammatical exactness (do people agree)? Skeptics of Plain Language have told me it is a 'lazy' form of writing, while I see Plain Language as a writing style which is more difficult and necessitates more work. (I don't remember it verbatim, but there's a saying of Mark Twain's that illustrates this, which is "I would have written you a shorter letter, if I'd had more time.") Anyway, so I would try to explain that any communication could be poorly written; and Plain Language is not an excuse, or a format, for 'sloppy' writing. Plain Language should be concise, readable, and clear. And it should be well-written. And I think it can be well-written without adhering to all rules of grammatic correctness. Do people agree? Laurie Ann Columbo Regional Director, Programs American Heart Association New York, New York mslaurie@yahoo.com --- Kate Nonesuch <knonesuch@TheHub.capcollege.bc.ca> wrote: > nifl-health@nifl.gov writes: > >This medicine is only for the child for whom it is > prescribed. > >vs. > >This medicine is only for the child the doctor > gives it to. (?) > >Only give this medicine to the child it is ordered > for. (?) > > > I'd go with the second one. I try to be > grammatically correct, but I > always choose to use ordinary language, even if it > is not "correct." > > What about this? (I'm sure everyone on the list has > a favorite way to > think about such problems.) > > This medicine is for the child whose name is on the > bottle. Don't give it > to any other child. > > Kate Nonesuch > Reading and Writing Centre > Malaspina University-College > Cowichan Campus > Duncan, BC > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:29 EST