Re: Another attempt at plain language

[Kent Karlsson <[e-mail]>]

Den 2015-09-10 21:20, skrev "Doug Ewell" <[e-mail]>:

> Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at telia dot com> wrote:
> 
>> Thus, I would in addition prefer a subtag name like "easy" rather than
>> "plain" or "simple". "Easy to read (or follow in speech), easy to
>> understand". 
> 
> That was exactly the opposite of my point. Language can be easy to
> understand for (at least) two reasons:
> 
> 1. because it uses basic vocabulary and grammatical structures
> 
> 2. because the content is direct and to the point
> 
> I didn't want to argue over the exact value of the subtag, but to my
> mind, 'easy' could denote either of these concepts, and I believe that
> is quite the wrong approach.
> 
> I think at the least, 'plain' would likely be interpreted as
> "straightforward, non-obfuscatory," which is NOT tied to any given

But also not very useful. "Normal" content should be expected to be
straightforward (in the sense of clear) and non-obfuscatory. There
should be no need to tag that specially. Not all content is that,
but would any "obfuscator" really tag the content as "obfuscated"?

Further, a text intended for (say) medical personnel may use terminology
that laymen are not familiar with. It may still be straightforward
and non-obfuscated for medical professionals.

> language, and 'simple' would likely be interpreted as "not requiring
> advanced skills in language X."

I gather that this was the intent of this. There is also a different
concept of "formulated for laymen", i.e. not using terminology or
formulations used only by trained professionals. It might still require
"advanced" skills in language X.

/Kent K

> These are very different concepts, and I do not think it is a good idea
> to register a single subtag which would be construed to cover both of
> them. I think we need to pick one, or else start talking about two
> subtags.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
>