[DrBazza]

Definitely these two:

1. Good writing is clear 4. Good writing is concise

Use a simple, reduced vocabulary, as your readers are likely to have English as a second language (e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44569277). And as Richard Feynman pointed out, try explaining it to a child. If you can't go back and rewrite it.

Don't use (modern) slang, and avoid writing 'conversational' English.

It's "lessons" not "learnings". How much have you eaten? How many eatings have you had? Ugh.

Don't use 'ping' or 'reach out' (you're not the Four Tops).

And what on earth is "welp/whelp" that people have started using in the last couple of years? It's "well, for one thing..."

[codingdave]

This feedback presumes that all writing is intended for a specific, professional audience. Good writing is not limited to a single audience, and good writers will consider their audience when making choices. If a writer goes against the 'rules' you've just shared without much thought into whether or not they apply to their current goals... there is a problem. But there is likewise a problem in blindly following rules.

The rules change based on what you are writing, why, and to whom.

[swiley]

Personally, the main motivation I have is to improve my writing for documentation that's intended to be read by coworkers (a specific, professional audience.) I wouldn't be surprised if most people on HN feel the same way.

[DrBazza]

Agreed. If I'm writing an English novel, I wouldn't be writing it in simple and terse sentences.

[dkarl]

"Welp" might be a regional dialect, but it is used a bit differently from "well," evoking resignation about something disappointing that can't be changed. "Welp, with the gas out, we can't use the range and oven to cook the nice dinner we planned, so we'll heat something up in the microwave instead." People who say "welp" also say "well," so it makes sense to distinguish them in writing. That's not to say "welp" is appropriate diction for every kind of writing and every kind of audience, but where it's appropriate, it's appropriate.

"Whelp" has a standard English meaning, but I suppose you might see it used to mean "welp" as well. I dislike this spelling, because in my experience, people who pronounce "whale" and "wail" differently also pronounce "whelp" (the dog one) and "welp" (resignation) differently, but I don't know if that is universally true.

[DrBazza]

This one seems to be 100% USA, and then spread over social media. The same as Valley-speak became really popular after Clueless came out in the 90s. I can't recall seeing 'welp' anywhere before 2017.

[rhn_mk1]

I just checked my chat history - I used it in 2013, and there's a huge flood of "welp" from my chat partner between 2015 and 2019. (In 2020, the ball is on my side of the court again, it seems. Welp.)

[kej]

Idle curiosity: what system(s) are you using that you have chat history going back that far and can easily search it?

[rhn_mk1]

XMPP (Jabber) :) The client is Gajim. While not a perfect client, having all my history in it forces me to stay loyal.

[boca_honey]

Yes, I speak english as a second language since grade school... And never stumbled upon this word until recently. This is the first time I read the actual meaning, also. Had no idea what it meant.

[jasode]

I'm glad I'm more of a language descriptivist instead of prescriptivist because none of your examples bother me.

>It's "lessons" not "learnings". How much have you eaten How many eatings have you had? Ugh.

Does the word "drinks" also bother you? (As in "How many drinks have you had?") (My previous comment about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020434)

And what about everybody including today's English PhDs incorrectly using plural "you" as singular you? The word "thou" was already the correct word for the singular and intimate relation. The famous song title should be "Thou Art My Sunshine" not the incorrect "You Are My Sunshine". :-)

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9780/did-english...

Does a language get to change and evolve at all? If yes, who should decide? A language committee or bottom-up crowdsource language speakers? When does the previous "incorrect and criticized" usage become "correct and accepted"?

[DrBazza]

> Does the word "drinks" also bother you?

No, but if you went to a pub and had several 'drinkings', then yes.

"Learnings" is incorrect.

> Does a language get to change and evolve at all?

Yes, and despite my dislike for "learnings" it looks like it is here to stay unfortunately. It's "business English", amplified by the internet. When I tell friends and family about "learnings" their response is, to put it mildly, "who are these idiots?"

Historical language evolution is towards shorter words, when those words are heavily used. Who knows how the Internet is going to change the language?

I think you'll appreciate Suzie Dent's twitter account: https://twitter.com/susie_dent

[jasode]

>"Learnings" is incorrect.

Not arguing with you but genuinely asking a question because I'm an armchair linguist that wants to dissect what's truly bothering you...

Why is "learnings" incorrect but most of these other words ending in "-ings" acceptable? : https://www.thefreedictionary.com/words-that-end-in-ings#w10

In other words, what's the invisible rule that makes words like "readings" for "reading"/"read", "greetings" for "greeting"/"greet", etc not attract as much language policing?

Trivia.... Apparently "learnings" has been around since at least 1483 according to Oxford English Dictionary: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118379/first-use...

[DrBazza]

Thanks.

> has been around since at least 1483

I should have guessed that it would have been used "before".

> what's truly bothering you...

I should say "Learnings sounds incorrect to me". Just the use of it makes me cringe. Just like nails across a blackboard.

Ironically, I do quite enjoy "obscure" English, in the sense that the US use 'fall' and 'soccer', both of which are "old" English, but fallen out of use in the UK.

[Veen]

When you write for a general educated audience, it's best to avoid words that will strike their ear as out-of-place, uneducated, or unexpected. You don't want readers to stumble over words or turns of phrase that sound ugly or unfamiliar to them. It distracts from the message.

From the perspective of descriptive linguistics, "learnings" may be acceptable, but descriptive linguistics isn't the only factor governing how writing is received. It should be avoided unless you're writing for an audience in which it's already in general use.

The issue isn't rules about forming nouns from present participles, but custom and usage in the general population and in that section of the population who read and write at an educated level. It's a matter of judgement and style. What is customary changes over time, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.

As to your final point, many words were in use in 1483 (and 1943) that would be out of place today.

[JoeAltmaier]

They sound odd because they aren't often used. But English has neat rules for creating words from other words. Nouns to verbs, adverbs etc.

They are 'wrong' in that they aren't in the dictionary (yet). They are 'right' because they are correctly constructed by the rules.

I say that as a 'programmer' or 'coder' who does 'computing' on a 'computer'. I could be a 'painter' who does 'painting' (and produces a 'painting'!) Or a doctor who does doctoring. And on and on.

[friendlybus]

Your stackexchange post corrects itself fruther down. Ye was the plural and thee the singular. You was accusative.

[rimliu]

English is my fourth language. I hate seeing advice like "use simple, reduced vocabulary". Dumbing everything down is not a way to go. Feynman said, that if you cannot explaind it to a child you do not understand it, not that you should communicate with everyone like they were kids.

[DrBazza]

> Feynman said, that if you cannot explaind it to a child you do not understand it, not that you should communicate with everyone like they were kids.

That's not what I said, there was a full stop, not a comma. I was applying Feynman's idea to writing, if you can't explain something simply in plain English, you really should rewrite it to reach a wider audience.

> I hate seeing advice like "use simple, reduced vocabulary".

Sure, and if articles are written 'normally', for people with English as a second language, that means that they will learn more English words when they encounter new ones.

However "I" is one person, and an author wants to reach the widest audience, with the lowest common denominator. I don't understand much German or French, for example, but an article written in simple German or French is much more accessible to me (the lowest common denominator).

Writing is about reaching all of your audience.

[buran77]

I think it boils down to "don't use a five dollar word when a fifty cent word will do".

It's not a matter of always using simple language, sometimes that doesn't cut it. Some concepts can't be broken down to the simplest words and still keep the quality of the conversation, the precision, the density of information.

I think it's just better to keep language as simple as it can be, as simple as the topic dictates. Don't complicate it just for the sake of sounding smart if the discussion doesn't require it.

[rhn_mk1]

> Writing is about reaching all of your audience.

Sorry to be nitpicking. It sounds like what you really mean is "writing is about reaching the widest audience possible". I would argue that it's not true. Writers can try to reach any limited slice of the public they dream of, and nothing more beyond that.

That means writing doesn't need to be as simple as possible. Merely as simple as needed.

[watwut]

Simple, reduced vocabulary is not dumbing things down. It is about using most common words available for the usage.

[sokoloff]

Exactly. The number of times I read "utilize" or "leverage" seemingly because the author doesn't want to say "use" is very high.

"leverage" in particular seems to get over-used, even in cases where there is nothing approaching actual leverage.

Make the reader think about your actual point; anytime you make them instead think about your word choice (in the form of "why did they use that word?!"), you're reducing the information transfer and effectiveness of your writing.

[Hard_Space]

Like many on HN, I admire the simplified language guidelines [0]that the UK GOV network of informational sites imposes on itself. A government has a civic duty to make regulatory and legal information as easy to understand as possible, for the widest gamut of possible readers who are subject to the laws of the land.

However, those sites have a captive audience: anyone smarter than the 'lowest common denominator' UK GOV target reader, any reader who might have appreciated a more concise and less 'hand-held' style, is going to keep reading anyway, because the information is important and non-negotiable.

Outside of that context, most pieces you might like to read were commissioned with maximum word-counts, varying levels of assumed readership skill and prior knowledge, and diverse other factors that defy any 'universal style-guide', such as TFA is trying to formulate.

For instance, I write about technology for a living. Those commissions have word-count restrictions that force me to either:

- Say less, so that I can maintain a level of English suitable for a moderately-skilled non-English speaker (As you can imagine, the editor does not want me to 'say less').

- Use more compressed and concise language that may be more challenging for the non-native reader (because concision can be antithetical to simplicity [and my editor also wants prose that is accessible to the widest number of readers without alienating the target demographic for that particular piece]).

- Write boldly and use footnotes and references to justify the claims I am making, because:

a) I don't have enough word-count for 'explainers' and 'box-outs'

b) I'm expected to deliver a lot of information, and

c) I'm expected to write in the simplest style available, depending on the intent of the commission.

It's bad enough that the dictates of SEO have dumbed down so much content from once-great news and analysis providers over the last ten years. Let's not support any further race to the bottom, but rather aim to write lean and information-rich material in a style that's matched to the readership.

[0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u...

[DrBazza]

The word count is interesting. Presumably that's to approximately fill a "page", and provide a "familiar feel" to all articles on a site written by different authors?

That's a good link and states what I was trying to say:

"""Good content is easy to read

Good online content is easy to read and understand.

It uses:

    short sentences
    sub-headed sections
    simple vocabulary

This helps people find what they need quickly and absorb it effortlessly.

The main purpose of GOV.UK is to provide information - there’s no excuse for putting unnecessarily complicated writing in the way of people’s understanding."""

[Hard_Space]

> Presumably that's to approximately fill a "page", and provide a "familiar feel" to all articles on a site written by different authors?

No, a word count is dictated either by the fact that the article is intended for print as well as (or instead of) the web, or else the latest SEO voodoo rumor suggests that this month 2k word articles are doing better than 3k word articles.

[DrBazza]

> or else the latest SEO voodoo rumor suggests that this month 2k word articles are doing better than 3k word articles.

Is that really a thing? Sounds awful.

[Veen]

I also write for a living. The maximum word count often has more to do with how much the client is willing to pay than space or SEO concerns.

[Hard_Space]

I think Stephen King was quoting someone else when he said "I wrote a novel because I didn't have time to write a short story".

In my experience, getting the same core information into a smaller word count is extra work, not less.

[Veen]

He was paraphrasing Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time".

I agree with the general point, but when a writer has a commercial relationship based on word counts, it changes the equation. I dislike word-count based contracts for that reason, but when the CEO of Widget Company Ltd hires me to ghost-write his blog articles, he isn't usually receptive to "you can have a 1000-word article for $400 or an 800-word article for $500".