RE: Another attempt at plain language

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

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 🇺🇸