[jfengel]

I find the "avoid gobbledygook" instruction a little odd. It's really about adopting a less formal register, which is fine, but words like "additional" and "purchase" aren't really obscure.

From the examples, it seems to be more about avoiding French- and Latin-derived words, and using Germanic-derived ones instead. We do tend to use our Norman root words in legal and other formal registers, and Anglo-Saxon roots do have a more active feel to them. And some of the examples are best left to legal documents ("pursuant", "concur"). It's probably decent advice to a novice writer, especially one who has been learning from academic or government writing and picked up an unnecessary sense of formality.

But they're hardly "gobbledygook". They're perfectly cromulent words, with shades of meaning different from their "synonyms", and can be used to enhance writing rather than obscure it.

[dan-robertson]

If you’re writing for a very wide audience, many of whom may not have good literacy, then avoiding anything slightly complicated matters a lot. There are all sorts of words one often sees in documents from governments (and this article is from and for the us government) that are not suitable for wide audiences. For example:

- shall

- one as a pronoun

- whom (instead of “incorrectly” writing who)

- sentences with lots of clauses

- basically any uncommon word, especially a long word or one with an uncommon morphology that makes it hard to sound out

People with poor literacy will not be able to scan text and so every sentence and paragraph should be short and to the point (as it may be read in its entirety and if it is too long it will be skipped). I think something like 40% of the US has this level of literacy.

Incidentally, writing for an audience like this improves the efficiency and engagement of mere literate people too.

As an unrelated point: many legal phrases use both a Germanic and Romance word, eg assault and battery; breaking and entering

[cranekam]

Definitely agree here. In addition, I am reasonably literate and understand all the uncommon words people use instead of everyday ones but I find reading windy prose is tiring. "I purchased a house", "we utilized the spoon", "Steve and myself are going to the pub" all sound a lot more clumsy and showoff-y than "I bought a house", "we used the spoon", "Steve and I are going to the pub".

[smogcutter]

For what it’s worth, “Steve and myself are going to the pub” is flatly incorrect. Good rule of thumb is that if it you rewrite the sentence with just the pronoun and it sounds wrong, it’s wrong. “Myself is going to the pub” and throwing poor Steve in there doesn’t change that.

[cranekam]

Yeah, I know this one is incorrect. I wasn’t sure whether to include it or not but decided to because I think people generally say it for the same reason as the others: to sound fancy.

[smacktoward]

The point isn't that they're valid words (you're right, they are), but that they're not commonly used words, and thus come across as formal and somewhat show-off-y. More people will understand a simple, commonly used word than will understand a more complex, less commonly used one, even if it's an exact synonym.

The people who write for governmental agencies tend to be highly educated people, and highly educated people have a bad habit of thinking that if they aren't constantly demonstrating how highly educated they are, someone will come along and take all their certificates away. So they lard their prose down with ten-dollar words, which makes sure that the only thing their readers will come away with is a sense of just how smart they are. (Or think they are, anyway.)

For a writer, the road to hell is paved with thesaurus pages. Use simple words, and anyone with basic literacy will be able to understand you.

[hammock]

>It's really about adopting a less formal register, which is fine, but words like "additional" and "purchase" aren't really obscure.

They're not obscure, but they are formal. "More" and "buy" are informal.

[combatentropy]

I think it's simpler than that, a matter of syllables. The word "more" is 1 while "additional" is 4. Someone might say it is petty to count syllables. But it can add up, over the course of sentences, paragraphs, article.

[dctoedt]

> They're perfectly cromulent words, with shades of meaning different from their "synonyms", and can be used to enhance writing rather than obscure it.

I had to look up "cromulent." Your use was in jest, right?

[MaxBarraclough]

It's safe to say it was. The original usage on The Simpsons was perfectly cromulent word, which jfengel has referenced verbatim.

(I'm disappointed to report that Firefox isn't convinced of the cromulence of cromulent.)