Return-Path: <root> Received: (from root@localhost) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VBr9B09521 for health-archive@nifl.gov; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200108311153.f7VBr9B09521@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from inside.sickkids.on.ca (mail.sickkids.on.ca [142.20.67.51]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KEZhg09037 for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:35:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca (notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca [142.20.71.62]) by inside.sickkids.on.ca (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id f2KEmx306470 for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:48:59 -0500 Received: by notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7 (934.1 12-30-1999)) id 85256A15.005026CE ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:35:28 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: HSC From: michelle.black@sickkids.ca To: nifl-health@nifl.gov Message-ID: <85256A15.00502448.00@notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:35:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [NIFL-HEALTH:2937] Re: Easy to read vs. grammatically incorrect Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-From: root@literacy.nifl.gov Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:53:09 -0400 Resent-To: health-archive@nifl.gov Status: O Content-Length: 1951 Lines: 61 Laurie Columbo <mslaurie29@yahoo.com> on 03/20/2001 08:55:54 AM Please respond to nifl-health@nifl.gov To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> cc: (bcc: Michelle Black/CMHealth/HSC) Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:2937] Re: Easy to read vs. grammatically incorrect > Laurie wrote: "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, My earlier response talked about similar things to what you're saying -- you're observations of how even respected newspapers are changing their style is a good one; it again shows how language is evolving to a form that favours simplicity over strict grammatical rules. About the above point, I agree wholeheartedly with your assertions. It's true that some folks think plain language writers do not know much about correct writing, possibly because they are trapped in that mindset that says that the more elevated your language level, the better a writer you are. However, I always assert that you cannot successfully stretch or even break rules unless you know what they are in the first place. This is true with clear design as well. While lots of plain language writing may seem simple, what people see on the page probably has lot of complex planning and analysis behind it. Moreover, clear writing is an expression of clear thought--you can't be a sloppy thinker to do it properly. Therefore I would counter that when done well, plain language is actually quite lucid, quite the opposite of sloppy. Michelle Black Plain Language Writer Health Communication Service Centre for Health Information and Promotion The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, Ontario CANADA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:29 EST