Writing techniques

After going through the meeting notes (which I could not attend), I though that it maybe a good idea to air my views about writing standards.

The following ideas come from my experience in working within Simplified English rules when I worked for Airbus and Ericcson.

1. Paragraphs no more the six sentences long.
2. Sentences should only contain a maximum of 20 words, with the occasional sentence allowed to be 25 words.
3. Never use the possessive apostrophe (for example Peter’s). Rewrite the sentence to remove the need for a possessive apostrophe.
4. Never use contractions of words (for example: don’t becomes do not; won’t becomes will not, and so on)
5. Never use Latin abbreviations (for example: etc becomes and so on; e.g. becomes for example; i.e. becomes that is).

There are many more rules, but the above basic rules are a good start. They are designed to make English text easier to translate into other languages and that is why it is called Simplified English.

Please let me know your opinion.

Regards
Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Peter Schofield kirjoitti 27.3.2020 klo 10.23:

After going through the meeting notes (which I could not attend), I though that it maybe a good idea to air my views about writing standards.

The following ideas come from my experience in working within Simplified English rules when I worked for Airbus and Ericcson.

1. Paragraphs no more the six sentences long.
2. Sentences should only contain a maximum of 20 words, with the occasional sentence allowed to be 25 words.
3. Never use the possessive apostrophe (for example Peter’s). Rewrite the sentence to remove the need for a possessive apostrophe.
4. Never use contractions of words (for example: don’t becomes do not; won’t becomes will not, and so on)
5. Never use Latin abbreviations (for example: etc becomes and so on; e.g. becomes for example; i.e. becomes that is).

There are many more rules, but the above basic rules are a good start. They are designed to make English text easier to translate into other languages and that is why it is called Simplified English.

Please let me know your opinion.

There is a style guide in the wiki: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/DocumentationTeamInfo/StyleGuide

Ilmari

Dear Peter,

Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas and I am pretty sure we can use these ideas also in other languages. Maybe you have more tips you can share?

Many thanks
Best regards

Leo Moons
LibreOffice/nl

Hello Ilmari

The Style Guide does not cover all my suggestions, mainly use of apostrophe and word contractions. These two items do cause problems when translating English.
My ideas about paragraphs and sentences are similar to the Style Guide, but I have put a number in the requirement. This does help if writers follow the suggestion.
Regards
Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Hello Leo

I have plenty of tips I could share, but those were the easiest ones to put in a suggestion. The Simplified English guide I have used is the ASD-STE100 and that is a tome that takes ages to get through and digest. Too big to incorporate into a LibreOffice Style Guide. I need some spare time to edit and only use the good bits for a suggestion. I think later in the year when all the other jobs have been done whilst we are in lockdown
Regards
Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Hello All

If no objection rises, I'll merge the suggestions in the wiki page.

Kind regards
Olivier

Hello Bernard

The use of “never” is deliberate as it does make it easier to translate English. Also, using the “Never” items in a document does make it harder for a user whose mother tongue is not English to understand what is meant. I have had experience of this.

I have not heard of George Miller, but will now look him up.

Regards
Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Hello Olivier

Definitely no objections from me. Hopefully, we will then get a standard English appearing across all the guides.

Regards
Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Hi Peter, all

I merged your suggestions to the Style wiki page/chapter:

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/DocumentationTeamInfo/StyleGuide#Writing_style

The 5th item was already mentioned (Latin abbreviations)

Regards
Olivier

Hello,

Sorry to butt in after being absent so long, but I'm worried about these
proposed rules.

I agree with rules to keep sentences and paragraphs short, breaking up long
sentences and paragraphs when possible. On the other hand, I'm uneasy about
rules like Peter's (1) and (2) stipulating maximum numbers of words or
sentences. If the numbers are intended as rules of thumb, they should be
rewritten to reflect this. If they are meant to be hard limits, it's easy
to imagine situations where following such a rule could make the result
harder to understand.

Second, I struggle to see how rules (3-5) would make translation easier, or
whether this is a good reason to implement them.

Regarding (4), if a translator's command of English is so poor that they
cannot understand common contractions, it seems doubtful that using
one-to-one replacements would make all the difference.

Regarding (5), if anything I think Latin abbreviations should be avoided
for the sake of readers of the English version, for maximum accessibility.
It appears from the wiki history that this provision was already in the
style guide.

Finally, regarding (3), genitive possessives are such a basic component of
English grammar that I worry that circumlocutions would harm readability to
an unacceptable degree, even if this improves ease of translation. No
examples are given, so I don't know what is intended. There are examples of
cases to avoid possessive pronouns already in the style guide, but these
are not contexts in which a full noun (phrase) would be used.

I think I understand the background that Peter is coming from, but I think
this issue requires more discussion.

--Kenneth

I'm uneasy about rules like Peter's (1) and (2) stipulating maximum numbers of words or sentences. If the numbers are intended as rules of thumb, they should be rewritten to reflect this. If they are meant to be hard limits, it's easy to imagine situations where following such a rule could make the result harder to understand.

Those numbers (word length and sentence length) correspond to roughly a
sixth grade reading level. This is the reading level of the average US
resident.

The _Readability Report_ extension, provided reading level scores using
various formulas. Unfortunately, this extension hasn't worked with LibO
since 2010, or with AOo since circa 2015.

Second, I struggle to see how rules (3-5) would make translation easier, or whether this is a good reason to implement them.

If you want to be picky, the relevant guideline is _first person
positive present tense active voice, with no contractions,
abbreviations, or foreign words_

It can be an extremely difficult mode to get used to writing in,
especially if one was taught that James Joyce is the perfect writer to
emulate.

Regarding (4), if a translator's command of English is so poor that they cannot understand common contractions, it seems doubtful that using one-to-one replacements would make all the difference.

This specific item has nothing to do with the translator's command of
English, and everything to do with the grammatical structure of the
target language, especially when the translation sequence is:
English -> Target Language 1 -> Target Language 2 - Target Language 3.
(AFAIK, no translation projects currently use this sequence. It is
extremely common for endangered and minority languages, that are
related to each other.)

I think I understand the background that Peter is coming from, but I think this issue requires more discussion.

Discussion about guidelines that target ease of translation, should
include all groups that produce original content in their specific
language. Offhand, I don't remember which documentation teams create
original content, and which translate existing content. On a
semi-related note, I don't which teams, if any, localise the
documentation for any specific language_country.

The items:

1. Paragraphs no more the six sentences long.
2. Sentences should only contain a maximum of 20 words, with the
occasional sentence allowed to be 25 words.
3. Never use the possessive apostrophe (for example Peter’s). Rewrite
the sentence to remove the need for a possessive apostrophe.
4. Never use contractions of words (for example: don’t becomes do not;
won’t becomes will not, and so on)
5. Never use Latin abbreviations (for example: etc becomes and so on;
e.g. becomes for example; i.e. becomes that is).

jonathon

Hello Kenneth

Having worked internationally as a Technical Writer, I understand what is required to get the message. I have had personal experience of non-English people not understanding apostrophes and word contractions. LO has no control over who uses our software and writing in Simplified English avoids any questions being asked on what does this mean.
To the best of my knowledge, Simplified English including my suggestions was originally created by Caterpillar who have a huge international clientele. It works for Caterpillar and also Airbus, so why not LO.
Regards
Peter Schofield

I was glad to see Kenneth's email because I had all the same concerns.
I would assume the English manuals are targeted at English speakers. I
cannot understand why a good translator would have problems with
possessives or contractions.
Clarity and brevity, plus an example or two, would I think generally make
both a reader and a translator's job easier. Done of the suggestions seem
to me to work against brevity.

Just my 2c.

luke

I have worked in Simplified English since 1986 and with translators since 1998. I still write in a Simplified English style because I find that it produces very clear text for users and translators find it easy to translate.

I suggested the “never” rules from my experiences in technical writing. It will produce clear text once people get used to writing in a Simplified English style. The drawback is training and editorial control so that writers no longer write beautiful prose. Text has to be as short as possible so that a user understands easily.

Regards

Peter Schofield

Sorry for the delay. I've waited a few days for comments, and this took a
while to write.

Hello Kenneth

Potted international history for you so that you can understand where I am coming from and the reasoning behind the suggested rules.

First came across Simplified English in 1986 when I started with Airbus. This is now an international standard for the aviation industry. Documents in English had to be written so that users whose mother tongue is not English have better understanding of what is written.
South Africa where the guides were written in English and Afrikaans. A version of Simplified English was used for easier translation.
Libya for very large construction project where documents had to be translated into Arabic and Simplified English was used.
Sweden and Netherlands for Ericsson who have their own writing style guide that included a dictionary of words you had to use and could not use (for example: "in order to" no “to" yes). This was based on Simplified English, but not sure what it was based on.
Worked in UK for an international company whose documents were translated into all European languages, as well as Arabic and Hebrew. Again a version of Simplified English was used for ease of translation.

My whole career has been Simplified English and have always had good comments from the people who used my services. This also included repeat contracts.

I will be going through the LO style writing guide and create a draft document for review and comment. That is when I have a little more time after completing version 6.4 of the Draw Guide. It would be great if all the volunteers wrote in the same style because it produce a more professional look to the LO guides.

I understand some concerns about my suggestions, but they do work. Once you change your mind set and get used to Simplified English, you will find that guides are more readily accepted by users as they are easier to use in my opinion and experience.

I will be honest that I occasionally divert from the Simplified English path, but never break the rules on contractions and possessive apostrophes.

Regards
Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com