How articulate are you?

Johro

KCC wrote: »

Don't say: "Ornithological specimens of identical plumage invariably congregate in the closet proximity" when you could just say: "Birds of a feather flock together".

Keep it simple. Being articulate is not about using big words.

'closest'
Otherwise you've just got birds in a cupboard.





Tried to edit in a smiley in the event I get accused of being a grammar nazi. It was a joke.
Can't add smiley in 'Edit'. So it goes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Johro wrote: »

'closest'
Otherwise you've just got birds in a cupboard.





Tried to edit in a smiley in the event I get accused of being a grammar nazi. It was a joke.
Can't add smiley in 'Edit'. So it goes.

No, our dear friend in entirely correct in his insinuation as the birds in question are gay.

The King of Moo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, our dear friend in entirely correct in his insinuation as the birds in question are gay.

Lesbians do tend to hang around together.

SimonTemplar

I'm anispeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation. I shall return interfrastically.

bluecode

Yes, I'm sufficiently articulate and able to express myself.

In my dreams. Otherwise no.

Although I'm quite good on boards and other forums, fora? Once I woke up in an alcholic haze realising I had posted something the night before under the influence. I rushed or rather stumbled to the computer only to find that what I'd written was incredibly well written and coherent. Not only that, some people had asked if they could quote my utterings as if they made sense.

Later I was quoted all over the internet.

In the real world I cannot put two sentences together. I'm the bloke sitting in the corner that no one talks too.

Even my wife.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Johro wrote: »

'closest'
Otherwise you've just got birds in a cupboard.





Tried to edit in a smiley in the event I get accused of being a grammar nazi. It was a joke.
Can't add smiley in 'Edit'. So it goes.

You can - just click on "go advanced" after you click edit.

Johro

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, our dear friend in entirely correct in his insinuation as the birds in question are gay.

Let's agree to disagree.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Johro wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree.

The birds, in your hypothesis, have congregated in the closet proximy - therefore outside of said closet - so their sexual orientations has been affirmed.

Sarky

I know at least as many words as John Waters, but quite unlike him, I know when and where to f*cking use them.

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

Would you like to give me a specific example of a passage or text that can't be put into simple language?

Username567 wrote: »

Off the top of my head no.

There are some things which are very difficult to describe, it depends what you mean by simple language really.

Up to yourself of course - just thought it might have made an interesting discussion.

I hear lots of people coming out with 'Oh yes, Plain English is a great idea, but my stuff is too technical/beautiful/important to bother with that nonsense'. There is a growing movement towards Plain English in many areas, including some of the worst offenders - law and academia. Once you start giving people homework based on a word count (e.g. 2,000 word essay on .....) you immediately incentivise people to pad and be wordy. And then you wonder why much academic material is unreadable.

Here's an interesting take on Plain English - Ambulate This Direction;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz8E8UOBFJQ

pickarooney

"Ambulate this direction", aside from lacking a preposition, has none of the duality of meaning of "walk this way".

Pacly

I was having lunch the other day when a woman came up to me and asked if she could take the newspaper sitting beside me. The first 2 phrases that came to my head were "go ahead" and "work away".

Instead of just picking one, I told her to "go away".

She took the paper anyway, so I don't think she noticed!

Too embarrassed to apologise...

HHobo

RainyDay wrote: »

Up to yourself of course - just thought it might have made an interesting discussion.

I hear lots of people coming out with 'Oh yes, Plain English is a great idea, but my stuff is too technical/beautiful/important to bother with that nonsense'. .... And then you wonder why much academic material is unreadable.

There is usually a very good reason for the nature of the language in academic material.

Consider a word like "Machiavellian". It is true that you could explain the concepts this word is intended to represent in "plain english" but it will likely take a whole sentence and that sentence might not capture the nuances of that term.

Philosophy is an example of a discipline that requires a lot of highly precise language.

If a philosopher of religion says something like
"An interventionist god is one that acts on supplicating and intercessory prayer. Believers in such a god also tend to have ritualised propitiations."

I'm sure you can rephrase it to be in "plain english" but it will probably be a long paragraph if you manage to capture the highly specific meaning of the words used.

Plain english stikes me as an attempt to reduce everything to the educationally lowest common denominator. Why should academia just not use words that most people in academia understand and that are better descriptors of what they mean?

If you look up the dictionary definition of a word, there is a reason why it takes a paragraph to explain what it means using other words. It exists as a label that evokes that whole paragraph in one shot.

Speech, like almost anything else, can also a form of art. I really hope some of my favourite speakers don't heed this "plain english" idea.
I have heard some speakers who could capture precise ideas in a single sentence of carefully chosen words. Sometimes they do this so well that I have found myself laughing out loud and marvelling at what was to my mind a wonderful use of language.

Why should speakers and writers dumb themselves down. Muddy up their thesis with less accurate words so people who likely don't care anyway won't have to consult a dictionary should they descide to read it.

It is undeniably true that in some cases deliberately obscure language is used. This is just bad writing/speaking in my opinion. There are times when very simple phrasing is much more appropriate. Academia seems a poor target.
Politics is the arena where simple language should be used as much as possible becasue politics concerns everyone.

Procasinator

Sometimes plain English can be more monotonous and less engaging. Though, this often does depend on how plain (or simple) the use of language is. For example, compare some http://simple.wikipedia.org articles against the normal http://en.wikipedia.org articles.

GerB40

I once heard someone say "you don't talk no good". Glorious irony right there.

krudler

Pretty articulate, I work with the public though and sweet Jesus, you'd wonder if some people still use grunts and draw things with sticks in the muck to get their point across.

ToddyDoody

I'm plenty articulate me. Read my posts.

ViveLaVie

HHobo wrote: »

There is usually a very good reason for the nature of the language in academic material.

Consider a word like "Machiavellian". It is true that you could explain the concepts this word is intended to represent in "plain english" but it will likely take a whole sentence and that sentence might not capture the nuances of that term.

Philosophy is an example of a discipline that requires a lot of highly precise language.

If a philosopher of religion says something like
"An interventionist god is one that acts on supplicating and intercessory prayer. Believers in such a god also tend to have ritualised propitiations."

I'm sure you can rephrase it to be in "plain english" but it will probably be a long paragraph if you manage to capture the highly specific meaning of the words used.

Plain english stikes me as an attempt to reduce everything to the educationally lowest common denominator. Why should academia just not use words that most people in academia understand and that are better descriptors of what they mean?

If you look up the dictionary definition of a word, there is a reason why it takes a paragraph to explain what it means using other words. It exists as a label that evokes that whole paragraph in one shot.

Speech, like almost anything else, can also a form of art. I really hope some of my favourite speakers don't heed this "plain english" idea.
I have heard some speakers who could capture precise ideas in a single sentence of carefully chosen words. Sometimes they do this so well that I have found myself laughing out loud and marvelling at what was to my mind a wonderful use of language.

Why should speakers and writers dumb themselves down. Muddy up their thesis with less accurate words so people who likely don't care anyway won't have to consult a dictionary should they descide to read it.

It is undeniably true that in some cases deliberately obscure language is used. This is just bad writing/speaking in my opinion. There are times when very simple phrasing is much more appropriate. Academia seems a poor target.
Politics is the arena where simple language should be used as much as possible becasue politics concerns everyone.

To paraphrase Hemingway, big ideas don't always come from big words.

Latchy

GerB40 wrote: »

I once heard someone say "you don't talk no good". Glorious irony right there.

Sounds like a line John Wayne or any number of other cowboy actors might have said in a western .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Anyone watching Demolition Man on ITV?

"Enhance your calm!"
"You are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality code."
"John Spartan, I wish you to leave my domicle now!"

AlekSmart

squod wrote: »

Please learn to learn to speak in the manner of people the from the D4 area. Put on a fake accent, some fake tan and use fashionable acronyms as often as possible.

Move to Dublin and secure a job in RTE.

Hmmmm,perhaps,however the BBC might just demand a tad more from a chap.......:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2VflzHApZ28&ytsession=LfaiULm-CYlOYxDKZVR9nwcU0AYMyfaE3Db4FbnPqGh5EnyEpxff7PX_G_DciK2GxYkRCWgCk6cQ73AnB55KmYy0OnqVOrI7PbPKJjEmHveq-HhxQs1zgt5bqnHFW8oQwfWb4KJCBADSMCXc30MUFUQuJebh3Wx6aLYkf1NXFzyw1oZxsCWfnjsXyDAop-yQcRzTRTyuj2_i2_SIYlGsr9Vhfmmb6FMolha4WdSpLbo7-HcTR4T2m-1ua16SOH65o8sp_XaJmbz5wduJhh4F-DVLR682R9KqFJU5RpBL8bXbj1a6CX04iISCIyLex9viIL69HWbf2Ea4acBTJpOT2I76Rylrg2NMiqc49KgVOxJQWB110EOrcstSdsLvPL4eXI_pvSFPCm7bNZk0HZP7jFACxy8iSKv73rQjRxz5jIRyO5W5yAk-mPBvw91cQp2v9uTN3WNqc-YpUOW7zEa2xuB9VD36MoUeDnOzwGQDuRRdsIXHSOVn7BvxEdZkRFo3Or1qWcjLvg-GbTEtO6nitRiY2-D-a2wiZTJ1UtNGwWtShbhsVTcbMVG8uCnDCN2r5pxKixodIx7pI5FHivK4A1vBh7b6OkE7vCzhrlW-ap0QUMdc58wOrJpz7vmTBCWOYrYx8Be1WjrtwiwZv3u9QVQhl0dsM7tKDr9R3bhlxNJPuiS0OaQVx77RJ0FmioPH

Pottler

I can touch my toes. I articulate well.

GerB40

Latchy wrote: »

Sounds like a line John Wayne or any number of other cowboy actors might have said in a western .

That could have been it. Im nearly certain it was American anyway.. If not a cowboy movie then probably something with hill bullies or red necks.

9959

GerB40 wrote: »

That could have been it. Im nearly certain it was American anyway.. If not a cowboy movie then probably something with hill bullies or red necks.

'Hill Bullies' one end of the stadium, 'red necks' the other, that's the Croke Park agreement in full.

take everything

Love the way everyone here suddenly turns into Stephen Fry with a thesaurus.
Everyone self-consciously watching their Ps and Qs.
LOL.

Capt'n Midnight

take everything wrote: »

Love the way everyone here suddenly turns into Stephen Fry with a thesaurus.
Everyone self-consciously watching their Ps and Qs.
LOL.

and r's

"The Great Hyperlobic Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler," said Deep Thought thoroughly rolling the r's, "could talk all four legs off an Arcturan MegaDonkey - but only I could persuade it to go for a walk afterwards."

Jacks Smirking Revenge

In my mind I form articulate sentences the whole time.
Too bad I have the vocal dexterity of a drunken walrus.

IrishExpat

A refined and developed vocabulary directly co-relates to elevated status and income.

Fact.

So yes, I make the effort.

Eve_Dublin

I'd like to be more articulate. I'd a bit of a stammer as a kid and sometimes I relapse a bit during very stressful times. I teach English to adults and I'd be very articulate in the classroom. I've learned not to ramble and if I feel myself over explaining something, I cut myself off and keep my answers concise. Outside of work though, there's room for improvement and it really depends on if I feel relaxed with that person or not.

Czarcasm

IrishExpat wrote: »

A refined and developed vocabulary directly co-relates to elevated status and income sense of self importance.

Fact.

Fixed that for you.