News

I refer to the commentary, “ ” (Nov 13). Yes, an official seeking to convey information ought to be clear about what he means to say and then say it intelligibly. However, even Ernest Gowers, author of The Complete Plain Words, said in 1952 that “mocking our officials (for their so-called opaque writing) is a national pastime of great antiquity... but it can be carried too far”. Writing clearly is about more than just using plain and simple language; it involves knowing one’s target audience and the core purpose of the writing. It is Gowers’ recommendation that when encountering “two words that express a writer’s meaning equally well, he must prefer the pleasant to the ugly, the short to the long, the familiar to the unusual”. However, when no two words express the intended meaning equally well, one must prefer the one that conveys it better, even if it is “ugly”. There are many indispensable ugly words in the language, and overemphasising plainness in expression can be at the expense of clarity in communication. For example, “climate-resilient” and “resource-efficient” encapsulate in a few words ideas that otherwise must be explained in longer sentences. Writers should try to express points persuasively and evocatively, and even judiciously employ synonyms in place of common words. We should not make our writing so intolerably plain that the language itself is pauperised. Instead of relying on just basic words to put points across, writers should have the freedom to use obscure, archaic and “ugly” words that otherwise would never see the light of day.